LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



...... (iopitrisit If a 



2 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



k 



'Mm 



M 




fwM 



$%$£*• 



■ 



'*mm 



THE 

SOCIAL QUESTION 

IN THE 

LIGHT OF HISTORY AND THE 
WORD OF TRUTH. 

— BY — 

REV. JOHN H. OERTER, D.D. 



Ji- 


V 




C ' 






^s 




NEW YORK: 

e. glaeser. 

New York Book Depository. 

1887. 



0*. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1887, by 

E. GLAESER, 

in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C 



DODD & REED, 

Composition and Electrotyping, 

49 Lafayette Plac£, 

New York. 



PREFACE. 

THE following Lectures were delivered in the month of 
March, 1887, under the provision of the " Vedder 
Lectureship" of the Ref. Church in America. It was 
at the special suggestion of the Faculty of the Theol. 
Seminary at New Brunswick that the " Social Question " 
was made the subject of the five discourses. The author 
does not in the least pretend to have furnished an ex- 
haustive exposition of a theme which has assumed the 
position of one of the most intricate problems of the day. 
These Lectures merely intend to give an outline of the 
development of this vexed subject. 

Among the numerous publications on the social 
question the author confesses his great indebtedness 
especially to the following as the most prominent: 
Stoeker, A., Die Bibel und die sociale Frage. 
Kuebel, F. E., Die sociale und volkswirthschaftliche 

Gesetzgebung des Alten Testamentes. 
Contzen, H., Geschichte der soc. Frage. 
Lange, F. A., Die Arbeiterfrage. 
Schoenberg, G., Die ethisch-relig. Bedeutung der soc. 

Frage. 
Ratzinger, G., Die Volkswirthschaft in ihren sittlichen 

Grundlagen. 
Kuntze, J. E., Die soc. Frage und die innere Mission. 
Haepe, G., Dr. jur, Die Socialreform und die innere 

Mission. 



Held, A., Zwei Buecher zur soc. Geschichte Englands. 
Wagner, A., Lehrbuch, etc., Die Grundlage. 
Schoenberg, G., Handbuch der polit. Oconomie. 
Roscher, W., Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft. 2 vols. 
Roscher, W., Grundlagen der Nationaloekonomie. 
Resch, P., Entwickelungsstufen der Volkswirthschaft. 
Schaeffle, A. E. Fr. , Bau und Leben des soc. Koer- 

pers. 3 vols. 
Ihering, R. v., Der Zweck im Recht. 2 vols. 
Arnold, W., Cultur und Rechtsleben. 
Arnold, W., Cultur und Recht der Roemer. 
Hollenberg, W., Die soc. Gesetzgebung. 
Thiersch, H. J., Ueberden christlichen Staat. 
Menger, A., Das Recht auf den vollen Arbeitsertrag. 
Scheel, H. v., Eigenthum und Erbrecht. 
Schippel, M., Staatliche Lohnregulirung. 
Schippel, M., Modernes Elend. 
Roessler, H., Ueber die Grundlehren der Volkswirth- 

schaftslehre Adam Smith. 
Held, A., Socialismus, Social Demokratie u. Social 

Politik. 
Schaeffle, Quintessenz des Socialismus 
Schaeffle, Ausichtslosigkeit, etc. 
Martensen, H., Socialismus u. Christenthum. 
Schramm, C. A., Rodbertus, Marx, Lasalle. 
Zacher, Die Rothe Internationale. 
Meyer, R., Der Emancipationskampf des 4. Standes. 
Oerter, J. H., Der Socialismus der Gegenwart. 

JOH. H. OERTER. 



CONTENTS. 



LECTURE I. Page. 

The Social Question in the Old and the New Tes- 
tament and During the Various Times of Ser- 
vitude - - 3 

LECTURE II. 

The Social Question under the Reign of Free Com- 
petition 42 

LECTURE III. 

Socialism as to Its Development, Its Tenets and 

Purposes 82 

LECTURE IV. 
A Critique on Socialism 120 

LECTURE V. 

A Solution of the Social Question - - - 156 



LECTURE I. 



THE SOCIAL QUESTION IN THE OLD AND THE 

NEW TESTAMENT, AND DURING THE 

VARIOUS TIMES OF SERVITUDE. 



" The Social Question in the Light of History and the 
Word of Truth," will be the subject of the " Vedder Lec- 
tures " this year. Before entering, however, upon this 
vexing theme, allow me to preface the same by a few ex- 
planatory remarks, in order to justify the selection of such 
a topic. 

The Social Question is in fact co-existing with the for- 
mation of society itself. For at all times in history, we 
notice among men the contrast between rich and poor, and 
consequently a vehement opposition against too great an 
economic difference. But never before has this opposi- 
tion assumed such a progressively revolutionary attitude 
as in our own day. The reason for this is found in the 
fact that at present, ' ' The actual inequality of posses- 



4 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

sions, is regarded by the great mass as standing in direct 
opposition to the generally acknowledged equality of indi- 
vidual rights of all men." Hence the weak and poor rise, 
even revolt, against the division of property, as it has 
been formed by various processes of times past. 

But even this alarming attitude of the Social Question, 
would hardly justify me in making this difficult and per- 
plexing problem the object of our consideration, if it pre- 
sented merely a material and economic aspect. Should it 
be true, what political economy and the laboring classes 
in general maintain, that it amounts to nothing more than 
a question of wages or of a better distribution of the 
national income, then the provisions under which these 
lectures are held, would exclude a discussion like the one 
proposed. 

But I am confident of being able to show the pre-emi- 
nently moral and religious character of a movement 
which agitates the whole civilized world, by proving that 
most of the present social and economic evils are but the 
natural outgrowth of irreligious principles underlying 
political economy and social orders. To do this, it will be 
necessary first of all to take a brief survey of the historic 
developement of the Social Question, and at the same time 
to test the results of the same, by that never failing stand- 
ard which the Word of Eternal Truth furnishes us. 

By that, we will be enabled to form a true conception 



OLD TESTAMENT. 5: 

of the actual state and character of the Social Question, 
which I consider of primary importance for a correct and 
successful solution of this intricate problem. Society in 
general must come to a clear understanding of the real 
causes of the present trouble ; if they are ever to be re- 
moved. 

The following presentations do not in the least assume 
to be an exhaustive exposition of a subject, which has 
Challenged the minds of men who have devoted their 
entire attention to the study of the Social Question and its 
solution. They merely intend to throw, if possible, some 
light on a perplexing subject, and to suggest for your 
consideration a few points that might be serviceable to its- 
final solution. The remainder of the present lecture will 
be devoted to an effort, to secure to us a firm stand-point, . 
by establishing the economic principles of the Old 
and New Testaments. -By way of contrast, then, we will 
glance at the nature of the Social Problem during the 
different Times of Servitude. 

In the Old Testament the ideas of State, Church and 
Society essentially coincide. Hence its social and eco- 
nomic regulations must be considered in connection with 
its civil and religious enactments. 

Now, the Jewish commonwealth was not an accidental 
product of historical events, or a conglomeration of heter- 
ogeneous fragments of conquered nations, with, perhaps ~ 



6 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

an original race forming the governing element. It was 
rather the natural outgrowth of a pure lineage or descent. 
But it is not this consanguinity, which in the eyes of the 
Law, elevates Israel to the rank and authority of a nation, 
but a specific act of Divine election, that gives to it na- 
tional existence. "Is not he (Jehovah) thy Father, that 
bought thee? hath He not made thee and established 
thee ? " [Deut. xxxii: 6, i8."| The deliverance out of the 
house of bondage, the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, 
and the leading into the land of Canaan, appear as the 
three marked acts of Divine grace, by means of which the 
chosen people of God were made a distinct and peculiar 
nation. [See Deut. xv: 15; xxxii: 16; Lev. 25:38.] The 
purpose of this election is expressed in the words of Jeho- 
vah: "Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and 
a holy nation," [Exod. xix: 6.] Israel was pre-eminently 
God's chosen people, and to this law of his purpose, all 
the civil, political and economic rules, regulations and 
divisions, were made subservient. Keeping this in mind 
we can understand why the Supreme Law-giver threw 
such a safeguard around his people, in order to keep them 
untarnished by the pollutions of the surrounding pagan 
nations; why so many ordinances tended towards the 
preservation of the natural divisions into tribes, families, 
and households, [Josh, vii: 14, 17, 18]; and why aside 
from these organic demarcations, the Old Testament did 



OLD TESTAMENT. 7 

not, and would not, recognize any distinction on account 
of birth or inheritance. Jewish history knows nothing of 
nobility or preference on account of descent, no feudal 
power or dependency. " Israel is a people of brothers, 
because it is a people of servants of God." This fact 
will also help us amazingly to understand the economic 
provisions made by the law of God. We will first direct 
our attention to the Old Testament idea of property, that 
essential and universal factor of production. 

Israel being designed for a farming people, the Land of 
Canaan was given to it for its possession. But just, as 
well as it had to consider its national existence as the re- 
sult of a special act of God's sovereignity ; so the law 
required it, to look upon the land as a peculiar gift of 
Jehovah. All the agrarian provisions are based on the 
fundamental principle and declaration of the Supreme 
Law-giver : ' * The land is mine ; for ye are strangers and 
sojourners with me." Lev. xxv: 23. In Egypt the King, 
as the incarnation of the Godhead, was discretionary 
possessor of the entire country ; but among the chosen 
people Jehovah himself was to be considered, as the absolute 
sovereign and rightful owner of the promised land. Although 
the twelve tribes, at the point of the sword, had to con- 
quer every inch of the land of Canaan, yet according to 
the law they could only lay the claim as tenants of 
Jehovah to it. Each tribe had its allotted portion 



•8 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

not by fee simple, but in trust, that is, it possessed 
the right of turning to use and advantage, but not the 
right of disposal. 

This position of the law was of great consequence in 
more than one respect. Israel could under no circum- 
stance sell the land, neither collectively nor individually. 
Besides, it had to learn the important lesson, that the 
prosperity of the land stood in close connection with the 
behavior of the people towards the law of Jehovah. Yea, 
it was made the chief condition of the tenancy, that in 
the case of obedience to the law, the soil would always 
yield plentifully, while on the other hand, disobedience 
would bring poverty upon the people, and finally become 
the cause of forcible dispossession, [Deut. xxviii ; Lev. xxvi~|. 
National wealth, therefore, was not to be considered in 
Israel as the result of the energy of the people; but as a 
free gift of God, dependent, however, on the religious 
life of the nation. Strictly speaking the Old Testament 
law never considers a mere possession, or the proceeds 
thereof, or from labor rendered as property; the latter in- 
variably appears as a benefaction of the God of Israel. 
Hence we do not hear anything of an absolute right of 
man to any earthly possession, that right according to 
Scripture, belongs exclusively to the Disposer of all 
things. 

It is true, the land of Canaan was given to Israel, as a 



OLD TESTAMENT. 9 

possession of its own ; but that only relatively and with 
regard to the surrounding nations. Otherwise Jehovah 
remained forever the chief owner. Aside from this pro- 
viso, Israel in its totality held the title to the promised 
inheritance ; not that the management thereof, should be 
in the hands of the entire commonwealth. On the con- 
trary the law expressly demanded the distribution of the 
land in the order and manner of the natural divisions of 
the tribes, families, and households, each of which re- 
ceived a distinct allotted estate in fee, which it held as an 
inalienable and hereditary property; [Numb.xxvi: 53-55 ; 
xxxiii: 54"]. That is, to say, the Old Testament law estab- 
lished private property, and was very anxious to keep, if 
possible, each individual possession intact. For example, 
the injunction respecting the marriage of the daughter of 
.Zelophehad [Numb, xxvii: 4-7], the well-known insti- 
tution of the kinsman [Lev. xxv: 24, 26], the provisions 
made with reference to the redemption of sold property, 
at any time [Lev. xxv], and especially the requirements 
concerning the restitution of all alienated property in the 
year of Jubilee: everything was calculated to preserve to 
the original owners, whether tribe, or family, or house- 
hold, that portion which was allotted to them by the will 
of Jehovah. 

The same wise and benign circumspection is noticed, 
when we look at the provisions made with regard to the 



IO SOCIAL QUESTION. 

unavoidable social difference of rich and poor. Accord- 
ing to Dent, xv : 4, 5, the economic aim and end of the 
theocratic life of Israel was the prevention of poverty. 
But as that depended on a strict and general observance 
of the law, Jehovah knew but too well, that even among 
his chosen people there would be continually needy per- 
sons [ver. 11]. But in order to prevent a too great a 
gulf among the .members of the Theocracy, the Supreme 
Law-giver issued such regulations, that on the one side 
would check the accumulation of enormous wealth, guard 
against impoverishment on the other ; and would, also, 
throw obstacles in the way of overreaching on the part of 
the rich. Thus, for example, the laws respecting re- 
demption, and final restitution of property, in the year of 
Jubilee, besides achieving the direct purposes mentioned 
before, were also intended as a restraint on human avaric- 
iousness. Besides, the fact that usury and taking inter- 
est of any member of the covenant people, was strictly 
forbidden, made all speculations in exchange, etc., impos- 
sible. There was no chance for a few to gather up the 
possessions in the land, or to enrich themselves out of 
the vicissitudes of life, or the reverses of their fellowmen; 
unless they trampled under foot the explicit statutes of 
the Divine law. That such was done, is evident from the 
rebuke of the prophets; [Isa. v: 8; Mic. ii: 2:] "Woe 
unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, 



OLD TESTAMENT. II 

till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in 
the midst of the earth :" and, "That oppress even a 
man and his heritage." But such acts of avidity were 
known to stand in open violation of the theocratic code 
of laws; they were by no means shielded by it. 

The same eagerness is manifested with reference to the 
prevention of poverty. During the time of harvest, the 
poor enjoyed the privilege of gathering up what was com- 
manded to be left for them on the fields. [Deut. xxiii: 
24 et seq. ; Lev. xix: 10; xxiii: 22.] Especially in 
the year of tithing (the third) the second tenth was to be 
given to "the stranger, the fatherless and the widow." 
Lastly, in the Sabbath and Jubilee years the same right 
was granted to the poor as to the rich, indiscriminately 
to apply to their daily wants, whatever the Lord in his 
mercy had permitted to grow. Add to these, the regula- 
tions of the law respecting loans, security, and pawning, 
etc. [Exod. xxii: 25 et seq.; Deut. xxiv: 10-13; xxv: 
1-10.;] and we find a legal bulwark thrown around a 
helpless class, intended to protect it against the so easily 
aroused rapacity of the rich. 

A further proof of that is found in the position, which 
the Old Testament law occupies with reference to labor 
and laborers. The former appears first of all as a part of 
the curse pronounced upon sin, [Gen. iii: 19]. But in 
the Ten Words it receives the form of a co .,', of 



12 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

an expression of the will of God for the present living, 
[Exod. xx : 6, Deut. v: 13; Exod. xxxv: 2]. This is 
the leading idea of labor throughout the Old Testament, 
everywhere it appears as an obligation resting upon the 
members of the covenant. Hence obedience to God is 
to form the principal motive for working; all other consid- 
erations, as that of its necessity for existence, its blessing 
for mankind, its compensation, are to be of secondary im- 
portance with those, that are governed by the law of Je- 
hovah. In close connection with this stands the other 
truth, that everywhere in the Old Testament the result of 
labor, — the product or its compensation — wages, — is not 
chiefly and mainly considered as the necessary conse- 
quence of human exertion or work spent ; but primarily 
stands in the relation of an effect to a superhuman cause, 
namely, to the blessing of the Supreme Lawgiver, war- 
ranted in all cases of obedience to the law. "Your 
strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not 
yield her increase, neither the trees of the land yield their 
fruits," [Lev. xxvi: 20], says Jehovah. That is, as 
has been well said: "God's national economy works with 
fundamental factors, that are entirely different from those 
of modern science." [Kuebel, p. 70."] 

Of the same peculiar character is the Old Testament 
conception of the laborer. The idea of labor as a Divine 
injunction of necessity, stamped every member of the 



OLD TESTAMENT. 1 3 

Jewish commonwealth as a workman. Hence the law 
did not create or establish, strictly speaking, any of those 
social distinctions known, as employers and employed, cap- 
italists and laborers ■, laborless income and proceeds from 
toil, etc. But on account of the universal sinfulness of 
man it anticipated such economic differences, and it was 
only with reference to this anticipated state of affairs, that 
it made provisions for their amelioration. All Israelites 
are the servants of Jehovah; hence they are brothers in 
their relations to each other. But for the reason stated 
pauperization even among a nation of brothers could not 
be prevented. Various causes could reduce any member 
of the covenant-people to such a state of want, as to com- 
pel him to offer his time and strength for the services of 
another, in this case he became a hired servant. [Lev. 
xix: 13"]. Or, he might wax so poor, that he would even 
sell himself for a limited or an unlimited time to his 
fellowmen, or to a stranger, [Lev. xxv : 39 et seq. ; 
Exod. xxi: 5:6; Deut. xv: 16], and thus become a free- 
will bond-servant] or he might even be born into a state of 
dependence. [Exod. xxi: 3 et seq]. All these various 
economic conditions the law foresaw ; and it at once threw 
its preventing and protecting arms around those, that thus 
might become dependent. By a number of provisions 
and restrictions it reduced the actual cases of servitude 
to the smallest number. Bonded service could never be- 



14 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

come a degraded, established institution in Israel, as the 
sale of any member of the Theocracy, for the purpose of 
making him a bond-servant, was strictly prohibited. And 
in all cases of free-will servitude, the privilege of redemp- 
tion by relatives or friends was granted, or the liberation 
demanded in the year of Jubilee. The laborer in Israel 
under all circumstances of life was to be considered, as a 
member of the Theocracy, as a brother. Hence he en- 
joyed in his time the rare privilege of a legal status, which 
was denied to the slaves of the surrounding nations. By 
industry and faithfulness he was permitted to put himself 
into the possession of personal property, a right that was 
not denied even to the slave in Israel. His work, as well 
as his person, was esteemed so highly in the eyes of the 
law, that it guaranteed to him, just as well as to his mas- 
ter, the blessing of the weekly Sabbath-rest; besides the 
social, economical privileges of the Sabbath and Jubilee- 
years, a humane provision, which was extended even to 
the laborer out of the animal kingdom. [Lev. xxv: 6, 7.] 
In regard to his 7uages, it is true, the Mosaic law fixes 
no standard, or scale by which in each case, its limits 
might have been decided ; it leaves that to the mutual 
agreement of the parties concerned. In order, however, 
to protect the wage-earner against oppression, the em- 
ployer is earnestly admonished not to over-reach, and it is 
strictly enjoined upon him to pay off his laborer every 



OLD TESTAMENT. 1 5 

day : " Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant, 
that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or 
of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates : at 
his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun 
go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart 
upon it: lest he cry out against thee unto the Lord, 
and it be a sin unto thee." [Deut. xxiv: 14, 15; Lev. 
xix: 13.] On the basis and strength of this divine pre- 
cept, Jeremiah, the prophet, severely denounces the 
transgressors thereof in the following cutting words: 
"Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteous- 
ness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neigh- 
bor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his 
work." [Jer. xxii: 13."! 

Thus a golden thread of foresight and tender care, for the 
poor and the needy, the dependent and serving, the serf 
and the slave, runs through the entire Mosaic legislation, 
making social disruptions, and antagonistic class-differ- 
ences impossible, as long as the majesty of the law was 
acknowledged. The Jewish commonwealth enjoyed the 
rare blessing of being preserved from those social con- 
vulsions, that frequently shook the very foundation of the 
highly cultured states of classical renown, and finally 
brought them to ruin. But when with a change of in- 
dustrial relations Israel forgot its God, then povert)^ as a 
morbid state of the economical life of the people appears 



1 6 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

in the foreground in a disquieting measure, and with it 
that social tension, which everywhere results from too 
great a difference in the economical status of the com- 
ponent parts of society. 



The New Testament and the Social Question. 

According to a word of Christ concerning his relation 
to the Old Testament law, we are fully justified in saying 
that it is not the purpose of Christianity to destroy that 
law, but rather, to make a beginning with an earnest, 
conscientious fulfilling of the same. But in this noble 
and high calling it intends not only, to serve the chosen 
covenant-people, a Jewish particularism, but all people 
under whatever condition of life it might find them. The 
obtaining of this end, it does not expect from any sharp- 
ening of the letter of the law, or by any aggravation of its 
penalties; but rather from the imparting of the renewing 
and reforming power of that love, which became flesh in 
Christ Jesus. That is, it is not the purpose of Christian- 
ity externally, by the power of laws or the authority of 
the State to make human affairs and circumstances con- 
form to the Divine ideal. On the contrary, its endeavor 
is to regulate, penetrate, and sanctify from within all hu- 
man relations, so that they may be brought into harmony 
with the spirit of Divine love, as it manifested itself in 
Christ Jesus. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 1 7 

On account of this peculiar, exceptional position of the 
New Testament, very evidently we cannot expect to find 
on its pages a specific Christian-economical legislation, 
nor an express doctrine concerning questions of political 
economy. The gospel of Christ recognizes the social and 
civil conditions of the different nations, just as it meets 
them; but it also uses every effort to fill them with its 
Godlike spirit, and thus to bring them into consonance 
with the Divine will and pleasure. For example, any at- 
tempt to construe out of passages of the New Testament 
a specific Christian idea of property ', will always fail. But 
when already in the Old Testament, the covenant mem- 
ber appears as the mere tenant of Jehovah, then in the 
New Testament the believer is still more set forth, as the 
steward of his master. Here, even more than there, 
every external, physical, earthly possession is traced back 
to the Giver of all good and perfect gifts; and the use 
thereof made subordinate entirely and exclusively to the 
promotion of the honor and glory of God, to the advance- 
ment of his kingdom, and to the furtherance of the wel- 
fare of our fellowmen, as well as our own. Innumerable 
passages sustain this assertion. 

In like manner the New Testament does not touch the 
external differences between rich and poor, master and 
servant, employer and employee. Nay, it predicts even 
the continuation of such relations of dependence, during 



1 8 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

the present order of things. But at the same time it de- 
mands of all believers, that by the spirit of love and com- 
munion with Christ, all these conditions should be regu- 
lated and sanctified in such a manner, that in heart and 
mind, and before God every distinction would actually be 
abolished; and thus also the outside of such relations 
lose every severity and hardship. Read for example, 
Eph. vi.; Phil.; i. Cor. xii. ; 2. Cor. xiii.; and other like 
passages, and then put the question to yourselves, 
whether you can even imagine a Christian slaveholder, 
who in the treatment of his slaves would place himself on 
the prerogative granted to him by the Roman law ? Or 
an employer after the spirit and mind of Christ, who 
could draw the very lifeblood out of his workmen ? Or, 
on the other hand a Christian laborer, who by means of a 
revolver, dynamite and petroleum, would present and en- 
force his demands ? Certainly not. The New Testament 
most severely censures all those that profess Christ, but 
hang their heart on riches, oppress the poor, or withhold 
the just dues from the laborer; while it exhorts the de- 
pendent class to be patient and not to grudge one against 
another. [See especially Jas. v: 1-9.] 

In regard to labor the New Testament does not express 
any opinion, as to the different value of human accom- 
plishment, or as to a full equivalent for work rendered. 
But the spirit of Christianity at once raises man from that 



NEW TESTAMENT. 1 9 

degrading position, in which, according to the conceptions 
,and usages of the ancient heathen world, he himself was 
to be esteemed according to the higher or lower character 
•of his work. In the eyes of Christ and his apostles each 
individual person, as a human being, and especially as an 
object of redeeming love, possesses an intrinsic value, 
that is not dependent on his manual or mental achieve- 
ments, either separately or collectively. He has a higher, 
a moral worth. Now, when he brings this to bear on his 
economical pursuits, in so far that he infuses into his 
work his Christian conscienciousness and fidelity, his 
.delight and patience, his faith and love, then he im- 
parts to it a moral value, that at once removes from 
labor every menial, odious stigma. In this sense: "The 
scrubbing of a pious kitchen girl is just as well a service 
rendered to God than the worship of his people;" as Luther 
says. 

Of course, this fact does not decide anything, as to the 
economic value of a specific work done, nor as to the proper 
amount of wages due to it. But when it admits of no 
doubt, that Christianity considers man first of all in the 
light of his moral worth, as an object of Divine lote, and 
demands that he be recognized as such; then it must be 
admitted, that man can never be degraded below his 
labor, nor can his manual Work ever be separated from his 
moral being, without trampling under foot the letter and 



20 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

spirit of the Word of Life. That is, labor does not de- 
preciate the laborer, neither can it be considered as a 
mere material rendering, but in every case, as the con- 
scious act of a moral, responsible being. Two things 
follow from this: If the workman gives himself up to 
idleness, he neglects his Christian duty; if the employer 
over-reaches those employed by him, he both materially 
and morally injuries them. Even where the civic law 
secures to proprietors certain rights as to personal obli- 
gations and services of those dependent on them; the 
Christian owner is exhorted to consider his claims in the 
light of the higher Divine law of love. Paul expects from 
the professing Philemon, that he would no longer regard the 
converted Onesimus after the civic relation of slave-right; 
but treat him in the spirit of Christian brotherhood. It is 
true, we are not justified to infer from this, that in the 
business relations of life, Christian consideration ought to 
form the rule for every scale of wages; but it certainly 
does follow from explicit expressions of the New Testa- 
ment, as well as from legitimate inferences to be drawn 
from its sense and spirit, that the mere material perform- 
ances ought not to be the sole turning point on which the 
valuation of human labor is pending. On this, however, 
we have to say a little more in a subsequent lecture. 

The focal point of the Social problem in all ages, has 
always been the question, as to the just and proper dis- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 21 

tribution of the clear profit of labor, or of the national 
income. Now, the New Testament preaches, neither a 
social equality, nor an economic communism. The op- 
posite cannot be deduced from that entirely voluntary 
disposal of goods, as it is noticed in the primitive church- 
in Jerusalem. For we have here, neither an Apostolic 
ordering, nor a usage that extended beyond the limits of 
this single congregation. On the contrary, it was merely 
a local and temporary impulse of a powerfully moving 
brotherly love and communion. Nevertheless, it is evi- 
dent, that New Testament Christianity is eagerly endeav- 
oring by word and deed to equalize, as much as possible, 
those oppressive differences that for various reasons, 
might manifest themselves in the social life of its con- 
fessors. For this reason, it commands its followers in 
general, and the rich of this world specifically: "That 
they do good, that they be rich in good works, that they 
be ready to distribute, willing to communicate," etc., 
|_i Tim. vi: 17, 18; 2 Cor. ix: 8, 11]. Besides the 
Apostolic church laid the foundation of that caritative or 
benevolent system, which up to the present time has proved 
itself an absolutely indispensable, and highly beneficent 
factor in the economic life of Christian nations. It is, 
further, no inferior merit of the New Testament that be- 
sides fostering a spirit of general and special benevolence, 
it also tries to inculcate on the socially oppressed, and 



22 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

economically needy, obedience, patience, and forbearance. 
Although, the followers of Christ at the beginning were 
persecuted, and deprived of their earthly possession, yet 
nowhere in the New Testament are they incited to acts of 
violence or redress ; but exhorted to commit their griev- 
ances to the just retribution of the coming judge. [Jas. v: 
7-9.] Under the influence of the spirit of Christ at- 
tempts to murder, or social revolutionary movements are 
a matter of utter impossibility. 

Summing up what has been said so far, it is evident 
that in the Old and the New Testament, especially in the 
latter, a solution of the Social Question is offered, that 
has not been surpassed by anything put forth outside 
of Holy Writ. Nay more, it is a fact that cannot be 
gainsaid, that wherever the spirit of the New Testa- 
ment has penetrated the social and economical life 
of any community, the Social Question has never pre- 
sented itself as a problem yet to be solved. But it is also 
well known, that Christianity, as taught and lived by 
Christ, his Apostles, and early followers, could not bring 
to bear its wholesome influence on all nations, nor even 
on its own confessors in every age of its existence. 
Hence the social problem has called forth such different 
attempts at its solution, that in the course of time it has 
developed for itself a formidable history. 

The following pages purpose to outline the principal 



FEUDALISM. 2$ 

features of that development, and to test it by the word 
of Divine truth. 



The Social Question Under the Different Forms of 
Servitude. 

The economic life of any people, is the product of 
three operative factors: viz., of private property, or cap- 
ital; of labor rendered; and the participation in the proceeds 
of these productive forces. Now, history has shown be- 
yond a doubt, that the respective share of the individual 
in the national income or clear gain, always depend on 
the social customs and principles of right ; as they exist 
in a body politic with reference to property and labor. 
But just here, the individual nations, and the various 
periods of economic development, exhibit such a funda- 
mental difference in the conception of these two ideas, 
that the question, as to the proper share in the economic 
product, assumes a variety of forms. We begin with the. 
Times of Servitude, that is, with those social conditions 
of ages gone by, in which personal bondage by social or 
legal forms of right was publicly recognized. In the 
course of time this mode of existence has undergone vari- 
ous changes, or modifications, and consequently exerted 
a varying influence on the distribution of the national in- 
come. 



24 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

I. DURING SLAVERY. 

Involuntary servitude primarily sets out in the form of 
complete personal restraint, that is as slavery. Histori- 
cally, its formative causes are to be found first of all in 
that external power, by which the conquered and captured 
enemies in war were subjected to the conqueror; and that 
for the purpose of employing them economically for his 
interest. In addition to this very often unfavorable social 
circumstances, or subjections in consequence of oppres- 
sive need, formed another cause for slave-conditions. In 
every case, however, slavery has an economic basis: 
" For servitude,"as Wagner says, "always and everywhere 
can be traced back to some economical want of personal 
services, and of working forces in the production of 
goods." Hence, slavery did not arise until the primitive 
conditions of the hunting and fishing communities, had 
developed themselves gradually, into those of the agricul- 
tural nations. Considered in this light, slavery may be 
regarded as a social progress, when compared with the 
primary cruel custom of destroying the subdued enemy. 

Now, according to Bockh's calculation, we find in an- 
cient Greece, to begin with that country, about three- 
fourths of the population excluded from the benefit and 
protection of the law; while according to Gibbon's estima- 
tion, one half of the inhabitants of the Roman empire 
consisted of slaves. In consequence of these social dis- 



FEUDALISM. 25 

proportions, naturally the greatest economic inequality 
divided society, in these nations. Thus, for example, in 
Attica, the most civilized state of the ancient world, only 
13.5 per cent, of the totality of the people possessed real 
estate, while in the Roman empire all riches had accumu- 
lated in the hands of the senators and the knighthood, so 
that the possessing portion of the population did not even 
amount to one-half per cent. Besides, in Greece, labor, 
as far as it produced any gain, was detested, and for that 
reason given over to the slave. Even an Aristotle could 
.give expression to the sentence: " A good citizen ought 
not to concern himself with manual labor, for it blunts 
body and mind, and creates uncouth people." But what 
is still worse in the light of economic well-being, in 
Greece and even more so in the Roman Empire, accord- 
ing to law, the slave was considered and treated as a thing, 
and consequently, completely the property of his master; 
legally he was not a person. This fact explains another 
principle of Roman law and right, namely, that every 
gain, and all the earnings of the slave formed part and par- 
cel of the property of the master. This right extended 
even to all the members of the slave family, and the mas- 
ter possessed the privilege to punish or expose these out- 
lawed and deprived creatures, according to whim and 
pleasure. Of course, under such unnatural and degrad- 
ing social circumstances, the economic lot of the slave 



26 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

was beyond description hard and miserable. It is true 
there have been, even in times of the greatest barbarism, 
noble exceptions, as is proven by the provisions of a 
peculium, or the right of the slave to a certain amount of 
property among other benefits. But on the whole the 
existence of these outcasts was wretched, as they received 
but enough to maintain their physical powers, and when 
reduced to uselessness they were put on a starvation diet. 
Now, this exclusive employment of persons deprived of 
their liberty exerted a most disadvantageous influence on 
the economical developement of these classical nations; 
because the strong tie of mutual personal interests be- 
tween master and slave was utterly wanting. In addi- 
tion to this must be mentioned the sad fact, that the exces- 
sive mass of slaves, operated disastrously on the economic 
conditions of the free population. That is to say, the 
poorer class finally found it impossible to support itself, as 
the rich continually multiplied the number of their slaves. 
Thus gradually a proletariat of freemen was formed, which 
sunk down into a most lamentable condition, and caused 
Tiberius Gracchus to exclaim: "The irrational beasts 
possess their lair and stalls; but the warriors who fight 
and die for Italy, nothing but air and light, so that they 
with wife and children roam about unsheltered, and 
homeless. The address of the generals to fight pro 
armis et focis (for the honor of the arms and the fireside} 



FEUDALISM. 2 7' 

sounds like mockery. The so-called lords of this world 
do not own a glebe, they die for the affluence and dissi- 
pation of others." Mascher, the eminent investigator of 
classical antiquity, very strikingly depicts its collective con- 
dition in the following words: "In spite of all splendor 
and brilliancy, which dazzlingly surround classical anti- 
quity, labor was enslaved, — the division of labor, indeed 
was known and its value for production prized, neverthe- 
less production and consumption were separated in a 
caste-like spirit. The small number of free citizens, of 
mighty princes, and aristocrats, together with their philoso- 
phers, contemplated nothing else with their speculations 
than to allow themselves in a commodious manner to be 
sustained by a drove of slaves; while they themselves 
endeavored to pass away the time by inventions of still 
different extortions and acts of violence, by debauchery 
and ingenious enjoyments, as by well-sounding but idle 
conversations about the welfare of the state It is true the 
sages of antiquity painfully expressed it as their opin- 
ion, that labor, unorganized labor, as it then was per- 
formed, deprived man of his honor; but they were 
stricken with egotistic blindness, instead of ennobling 
labor, by imparting to it the character of the beauti- 
ful, they hunted their slaves, as they would deadly 
frightened beasts of the chase; and thus, they de- 
graded them more and more. While they confessed with 



28 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

a wisdom becoming a statesman, that poverty destroyed 
the nobility of the soul, they left the acquisition of prop- 
erty to arbitrary exactions! They admitted that capital 
without labor would bear no fruit, and yet from that they 
drew no other conclusion, than that there must be a caste 
of idle capitalists, and a caste of laboring slaves." 

That is to say, to the philosophers of classical Greece 
and Rome, the relation of master to slave appeared to be 
just as natural as that of husband and wife, or of parent 
and child. Hence, Aristotle repudiates the idea, that 
slavery was the product of power and compulsion, or of arbi- 
trary laws and social regulations. Here then, we find a 
system that presents to us the very opposite of those 
economic conditions which the Old Testament by law 
provided, and which the New Testament endeavors to 
create among mankind. In other words, slavery forms 
the crowning seal to the sinfulness of the human race, 
because it utterly ignores man's relation to his Maker, to 
his fellowmen, as well as to himself. It is a complete 
reversion of the Divine purpose with man as an account- 
able, moral being. 

Hence we do not wonder that these unnatural condi- 
tions which prevented the peaceful and wholesome de- 
velopment of the state, as well as of society, caused, 
even in benighted Greece and Rome, incessant social and 
political commotions. In the former, as early as 880 B. C. 



FEUDALISM. 29 

Lycurgus had made the attempt to remove the princi- 
pal cause of the exciting social contentions, by abolishing 
the inequality of possessions, as far as it was possible, 
and by declaring every child from its seventh year the 
exclusive property of the state. Two hundred years later 
Solon made a similar attempt by liberating the native 
slaves, and by granting far reaching political and social 
rights to the inhabitants of Athens, But neither Sparta 
nor Athens could be quieted, as the evil was not touched 
at its root. 

In Rome the Social Question presents an uninterrupted 
series of social disruptions and bloody deeds. The con- 
test between the patricians and plebeians, grew more and 
more bitter as time elapsed, until Tiberius and Caius 
Gracchus arose (133 and 123 B. C.) in order to overthrow 
the oligarchic party, by means of legislation and revolu- 
tionary measures, forcibly trying to put the poor and 
homeless into the possession of such property, which the 
rich had obtained unjustly. Both these reformers were 
killed in tumults, and the attempted reforms initiated a 
series of civil wars, until the conflict of the parties was 
ended by an unprecedented despotism — always the begin- 
ning of the end. Under such ruinous and decomposing 
political, and social conditions, the final downfall of the two 
lordliest and most imperious states of antiquity, could not 
be avoided. But we will pass on to the time of feudalism. 



30 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

II. During the Time of Feudalism. 

Christianity, as it shines forth from the pages of the 
New Testament, contains so many and such vigorous 
germs of vitality, that, when permitted to sprout, state, as 
well as social life are enabled to develop themselves har- 
moniously and satisfactorily. Now, in the youthful Ger- 
manic world these dormant seeds, for a time, seemed to 
open and to expand into full blossoms. The natural dis- 
positions, emotions, and social ideas of these tribes, re- 
ceived from Christianity, "Rich nourishment and bouy- 
ancy. In the political, scientific and social life of the 
middle ages especially, the lasting efforts of Christianity 
showed themselves in a zeal for a just and beneficial gov- 
ernment, in their opposition to arbitrariness, and tyranny, 
and in the great enthusiasm for the emancipation of other 
social classes from the bonds of slavery." 

But this powerfully moving spirit of Christianity, was 
checked, on the other hand, by political factions, domes- 
tic feuds, and especially by the influence of their ante- 
Christian social conceptions. In consequence thereof, 
even the embracing of the Christian religion could not 
prevent the formation Of those unfree conditions of life, 
which in their different modifications are designated by 
the collective n-axtizoi feudalism. 

Slavery in the long run, did not answer all economic 
wants. The more extensively and intensely agriculture 



FEUDALISM. 3 1 

had to be pursued, the larger the claims of the unfolding 
handicraft and of technics in general became, the less did 
slave work satisfy the economic wants of the time. 
Hence it died out by degress and gave room to serfdom. 

The origin of the same cannot, as is the case with 
slavery, be traced back to conquests, or acts of violence; 
it rather finds its explanation in oppressive economical 
circumstances. Persons originally free became poor, 
lacked therefore the necessary means, or the requisite 
estate for independent management; or in times of juri- 
dical insecurity they were unable to protect themselves. 
In consequence of these and other circumstances they 
were compelled to give themselves over to the wealthy 
proprietor, or the church, as serfs or bondsmen, tied to 
the glebe, or to bonded-services. 

We discover, therefore, in this dependent class, not the 
conquered of foreign nations, but for the greatest part, 
the economically reduced descendants of the conquerors 
themselves. The then so prevalent idea, that "Lording 
over others was for those in power, the most natural basis 
for drawing income," brought those without a home and 
the means of subsistence into such dependency. Whoso- 
ever tilled the land of another in any form, was, according 
to the juridical perceptions of those times, subjected 
also with his person to the respective owner, or in other 
words he hecame a serf. It is true, he was permitted to 



32 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

manage his own economy independent of that of his lord or 
master, and in this respect he distinguishes himself eco- 
nomically from the slave. But nevertheless, he was bound, 
either to hand over to the owner, measured or unmeasured 
shares, out of the proceeds of the entire cultivation of 
the ground, or while his master reserved for himself the 
best part of the land, not only to cultivate that sq 
retained portion, but also to divide the products of his 
own division between himself and the proprietor, besides 
being compelled to furnish for the whole the necessary 
human or animal forces. From this thraldom the serf 
could never be released. Besides this, he was subjected 
to the disciplinary and punitive power of the owner almost 
without a condition, and thus he was chained to his lord 
and the clod in a manner, that his lot appears to be but 
a slight amelioration of slavery. Even the artisan, if he 
could not set out independently, was tied down in the 
same manner. And as during the middle ages the entire 
national economy was governed by the custom of paying 
off all dues in the natural products, we can easily imagine 
with Lasalle y the lively scenes, when on the appointed day 
the tailors, shoemakers, glovers, coopers, carpenters, 
smiths, etc., brought the due products of their respective 
art to the feudal lord. 

After this severer form of serfdom had ceased to exist, 
we still find those bonded-services, which consisted in dues 



NEW TESTAMENT. 



33 



of natural products, or in personal labor, and which were 
required even of children and servants. This social form 
of servitude, in fact displaced the former, when the pro- 
gresses in agriculture, in handicraft, and trade, but more 
especially, ' ' When transition from paying off in natural 
products, to paying in money; when the development of 
cities and the greater demand of the enlarged population, 
concentrated therein; when further, the desire for more 
artful industrial, and for mental labor," (Wagner) 
called forth a corresponding development of the principle 
of personal liberty. Then the rude form did not answer 
any more the growing need, or in other words, the econo- 
mic want in time changed the economic dependency. 

Now, here the question arises how these unnatural 
feudal conditions, could ever enter Christian communi- 
ties, and in the face of the liberating influence of 
the gospel, maintain themselves during such a long 
period. The answer must be sought in the fact, 
that from the time of the forcible conversion of 
the heathen tribes and nations, many a pagan 
custom and conception was allowed to be retained. 
And in this connection, it is more particularly to be 
observed, that the introduction of the Roman law and 
right into the social relations of the Germanic tribes 
mightily changed their economic conditions. For accord- 
ing to it, labor presents but the same value as the object 



34 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

or thing. And " Just in the same manner, as by Roman 
right the proprietor of the ground gets into possession of 
the plant, as soon as it has taken root, by the same prin- 
ciples of law he also is entitled to the seed sown by 
another, and s the crops springing therefrom. So also in 
the sphere of obligations, the Roman law constantly puts 
dare, as the conveying of property in chattel, along side 
with the facere, designating any doing or performing. 
Thus the idea of labor, which, it is true, is hidden in it, 
does not stand out as an independent conception, to be 
appreciated separately and distinctly." (Contzen.) 

Now these principles of right had penetrated the juri- 
dical perceptions of the middle ages, and for the greatest 
part supplanted the Christian spirit in social legislation. 
Besides popery had developed such a lordly and hier- 
archical spirit, that these feudal conditions were prevalent, 
even inside the church and thus received a powerful iup- 
port. In the state absolutism reigned supremely, which 
on its part again ''licensed, chartered, tutored, and pro- 
tected mercantilism." 

You will readily perceive that under such circum- 
stances, labor suffered injury and loss; and the distribu- 
tion of the national income could not, but be highly un- 
equal. Thus, for example, in England according to the 
statements of the so-called domesday book, we find in 
the first half of the eleventh century at least three-fourth's 



FEUDALISM. 35 

of the population without any possession; and without that 
precious boon, personal liberty. The same holds true as 
to other countries. Add to this the fact, that the feudal 
lord by law possessed unlimited authority over the entire 
time and proceeds of the bonded servant; and that accord- 
ing to the decision of the anglo-normanic jurist Bracton 
in the 13th century the estate of the serf could be seized 
by his master, — not to mention other evils, and you must 
admit, that in feudalism circumstances had been devel- 
oped, which were anything but Christianlike and satisfac- 
tory. 

Baumstark y the historian, undoubtedly presents the 
same very correctly in the following words: "Feudalism 
-and the encroaching Roman right, each separately, and in 
^pite of their conflicting tendencies yet conjointly, pro- 
moted a system of social and civil polity which for cen- 
turies to come not only corrupted the conditions of the 
laboring class most disastrously, but which also bore 
heavily on the entire national economy, as it arrested and 
stunned its progress. These two in connection with 
papal policy, deprived the monarchical power, in whose 
interest the elevation of the middle and lower classes lay, 
of its independence and efficiency. They stamped the 
right of self-determination and of self-legislation of the free, 
as the aristocratic prerogative of a few families, without dim- 
inishing the public burdens of their liege-men. They aggra- 



$6 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

vated and multiplied the seigneurial and feudal exactions put 
on the lower classes. They confused the ideas of the popu- 
lar native right, which needed to be developed out of their 
own imperfection. Add to this the indolent life of 
debauchery and of adventurous nuisance of the feudal 
lords, who were not satisfied with being inactive and with 
impoverishing the estate; but who also endeavored to find 
their entertainment and gain, in checking and robbing 
commerce and trade." Certainly a sad picture of the 
conditions of the laboring classes, and that not perchance 
under the reign of pagan governments, but in the midst of 
Christian nations, and with the cognizance, nay, even the 
consent of the church of God! 

It is true, counteracting influences have asserted them- 
selves at all times. Thus as early as in the days of 
Augustine, the fathers of the church organized religious 
orders and societies, in order to induce the rich to deeds 
of benevolence towards the poor, and to assist in times of 
need and poverty. By words and writings the attention 
of the possessors of earthly goods was called to the im- 
portance of their possessions, and to the great responsi- 
bility in regard to the management of the same, besides 
the necessity of a Christian, affectionate treatment of the 
lower classes. So also the founding of monastic orders 
exerted a wholesome economic influence, until by accumu- 
lating worldly possessions and power they alas, became 



FEUDALISM. $f 

themselves instrumental in aggravating the existing social 
misery. Even those brotherhoods that were bound by 
the anathema, as the Humiliates, the Beghards, and the 
Beguines, did not remain without a marked impression 
upon the economic and social relations of their times, as 
long as they did not depart from their original religious 
object and aim. 

A special social and economical purpose was pursued 
by those corporations and guilds, that sprung up since the 
twelfth century. Their primary object, indeed, was by 
means of a closer union and a consolidation of mutual 
interests to form a counterweight against the overbearing 
nobility and patriciate. But aside from that they also 
turned their attention to the furtherance of their own 
economic interests. In the several cities the different 
branches of trade and craft formed into a separate body 
corporate. "The most possible equalization of all the 
associates was laid down, as the fundamental constitu- 
tional principle. The undue rising and expanding of the 
more capable, was hindered in order that the less gifted 
should not be suppressed. Hence each industrial person 
or craftsman was compelled to join one of the guilds, and 
the number of apprentices and workmen, and in conse- 
quence the productive ability of the employer was regu- 
lated. Closely connected with this was the fixing of the 
rate of wages, the restriction of the number of masters of 



38 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

the craft, and the greatest security possible of a ready 
sale by excluding foreign productions." (Contzen). 
Besides this, the acquiring, as well as the artful practis- 
ing of any profession was a matter of strict oversight and 
vigilance. Thus these fraternaties for centuries have 
operated upon and affected most beneficially the standard 
of the craft itself, as well as the economic, moral condi- 
tion of the family, and the commonwealth, and the forma- 
tion of the Social Question in general, although all of 
them more or less had the character of feudal coercion 
stamped upon them. In the course of time, however, 
these guilds, as at last all human creations do, became 
accessible to corrupting influences and abuses, and of 
necessity degenerated. For a time, and under the pre- 
vailing social abnormities, they served a good purpose; 
but were very far from solving the social problem, which 
from generation to generation assumed a most threatening 
attitude. The fundamental principle of enslaving the per- J- 
sonality and liberty of man, underlying all feudal institu- 
tions and counter schemes, gradually worked itself out in 
such a manner, that at last the pressure became intolera- 
ble, and reason, emotions, and hands revolted. 

Just before the dawn and during the time of the Re- 
formation, the agricultural conditions especially, had 
become so crushing, that the peasants began the well- 
known " Peasant Wars." But their history, as well as 



FEUDALISM. 39 

that of other communistic commotions of that and the 
subsequent periods, — as of a Seb. Frank, Thomas Minster 
and others, is sufficient evidence, that the entire national 
economy, and the movements of culture at this time pressed 
forward toward a breaking loose from the past. Society- 
had reached a crisis, which imperatively demanded a 
radical change of the political affairs, as well as of the 
social. As for economics, a new system gradually and 
unawares rose on the ruins of feudalism, which by degrees 
crumbled into the dust. In what way it was supplanted 
by the system of free competition, will be the object of 
the next lecture. 

Before dismissing, however, this part of our investiga- 
tion, it will be well to fix in our minds, the chief points of 
the historic development of the Social Queston as far as 
considered. 

1). It admits of no doubt that the expressions of the 
Old and New Testaments on social and economic relations 
of human life were divinely intended, as rules and regula- 
tions for the conduct of those that profess to believe the 
Scriptures. Christianity especially, started out with the 
express purpose to permeate with its heavenly influence 
and power all earthly relations of human life. At its be- 
ginning it seemed to be most succeesful in this respect. 
But after a few centuries of its existence, it admitted and 
even fostered social conditions that were merely a slight 



40 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

alteration of the bondage of the Greek and Roman slaves. 
The Church, then, had lost its salutary influence. How 
are we to explain this strange appearance ? A careful 
study of the development of the doctrines and the practi- 
cal life of the Christian Church, during the first four or 
five centuries convincingly reveals the fact, that the econ- 
omical perversions of feudalism, are but the logical conse- 
quences of the spiritual decline of the Church. How 
could it be otherwise From the inner Godlike life of the 
Church, as from the fountain head were to go forth those 
mighty renewing influences, that were calculated to raise 
again all human affairs and conditions to the divinely fixed 
standard. But what, when the fountain became turbid ? 
Need we wonder at the unnatural, repulsive social condi- 
tions of society ? Certainly not. 

2). The secularization of the Church resulted in the 
losing sight of the fact, that its ministry was that of 
serving, and not the cultivation of a domineering, lording 
spirit. Hence the gradual rise of popery with all its mon- 
strosities. But this hierarchical principle naturally reflec- 
ted itself in absolutism of state despotism on the one hand, 
and in the supreme arbitrariness of feudal prerogatives on 
the other hand. The one begat and upheld the other. 
The equality of all men before God was perverted into an 
undue distinction of a few, who in Church, state, and 
society, became the lords and masters, while the rest were 



FEUDALISM. 41 

doomed to ecclesiastical, political, and economical servi- 
tude. This relation was even proclaimed, as a necessary- 
outgrowth of a natural law. 

3). The degradation of the dependent classes began 
with an unbecoming disregard of the personal moral worth 
of man and with a depreciation of labor rendered, the 
latter being but the logical consequence of the former. 
These two distinctive features formed in fact the most 
salient points in the Social Question from its very beginn- 
ing. 

And it is the consciousness of these oppressive evils, 
that has caused the dependent classes to invent and devise 
counteracting means, or in case of their failure, finally to 
resort to acts of violence. A further investigation will 
show this more clearly. 



LECTURE II. 



THE SOCIAL QUESTION UNDER THE REIGN 
OF FREE COMPETITION. 



In the preceeding lecture we discovered the enslave- 
ment of the personal liberty of man, as the conspicuous 
signature stamped on the religious, civil, and social rela- 
tions of the middle ages. The compulsory, coercive 
institutions of feudalism did not allow the self-existence 
of the individual to exert itself, — the laborer was, and 
remained unfree in spite of Church and religion. On 
the other hand they called forth contrary agencies, which 
on their part, though unconsciously, became instrumental 
in augmenting and aggravating, even this state of depend- 
ence. For in political, social, and economical life, 
everything was constituted and regulated in a corporative, 
manner. The individual had no will of his own, but had 
to submit to the iron rules of the guild. Even the Church 
of that time executed the principle of corporative author- 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 43. 

ity and constraint with the greatest severity, as the 
Roman hierarchy is doing still. The individual church- 
member in his belief, his personal convictions, yea, even 
in the dictates of his conscience was tied down to the 
authority, and the judgment of the church. Now, against 
this repression of the personality and of the personal 
rights of man, Protestant Reformation reacted, in assert- 
ing above all the personal title of the individual to all the 
means of grace in Christ Jesus, as well as his individual 
liberty, over and against ecclesiastical compulsion, and 
his own personal responsibility to the head of the Church. 
Self-evidently this Protestant position could not fail to 
exercise a powerful influence on the political, social, and 
economic relations of that time. The spirit of liberty 
which since the fourteenth century, in all these various- 
conditions, had manifested its presence by various but 
disconnected signs, received new life form, and shape 
by the reformatory movement, and was led into the right 
track. The individual as such received again his due 
estimation. 

But alas! It is too well known, that not long after the 
dawn of the Reformation this evangelical conception of 
liberty was transformed into that of abstract " Individual- 
ism" That is, the individual was separated from the 
historical totality, and in matters of belief he was entirely 
placed on his own ability to. think and to will. It was- 



44 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

especially English deism of the seventeenth and eighteenth 
century, which, by its doctrine concerning religion, as a 
product of human nature, undermined the weight and 
authority of the revealed truth of God, thus placing the 
individual and his judgment over and above the decision 
of the Word of Light. Humanity and nature became the 
catch-words, and the ideal of the times. 

In France these negative tendencies found all the more 
ready access, as the political, social, and economical 
monstrosities and contradictions of the country materi- 
ally aided their introduction. Besides, since the days of 
Hugo Grotius, at the beginning of the seventeenth cen- 
tury, the so called ?iatural right had developed itself, 
that is the idea, that on the part of nature, certain inalien- 
able rights were granted to each individual, as to a human 
being. These pretended innate rights were placed over 
and against, yea, even above, the positive, Divine and 
the historically developed human right. In France it was 
especially de Montesquieu, who introduced and dissemi- 
nated these ideas, especially in politics; while Rousseau, 
in his " Contrat social," (On principes du droit publique 
I 7^ 2 )y g a ve expression and shape to them. 

In economics, of course, the effect of these negative 
religious, and liberal political tendencies soon became 
visible. The arising liberal spirit here likewise attempted 
to throw off the burdensome chains of feudalism, and to 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 45 

create a new order of things. The first lasting effort of 
this kind was made on the part of the so-called physiocrats 
in France, whose most prominent leaders were Quesnay, 
Condillac, Turgot, and Mirabeau. Their first opposition 
was directed against mercantilism, or against that doc- 
trine, which proceeded from the idea, that the individual, 
as well as the national well-being of a country, consisted 
mainly in the possession of money, for which reason espe- 
cially, trade and commerce were to be raised, protected, 
and regulated. The physiocrats, on the contrary, main- 
tained and asserted, " That the economic welfare of the 
country rested on the clear gain of every private econ- 
omy." For this reason they considered only that portion 
of the population, that engaged in agriculture, the culti- 
vation of forests, land, and mining, as the proper produc- 
tive elements of the people, while the merchants, manufac- 
turers, the literati, yea, to some extent, even the artisans, 
appeared to them more or less, as unproductive drones. 
In this manner the followers of this new doctrine were 
trying to raise again that class, which had been trodden 
down mostly by feudalism, namely, the tillers of the 
ground. 

In politics the opposition turned against the absolutism 
of the state, and the prerogatives of the feudal ranks and 
orders. Against these it was maintained, that also the 
economic production possessed a right, in as much as it 



46 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

rested on the " ordre naturel," — a natural order, and, 
therefore could claim " a droit naturel," a natural right. 
Consequently, the state wrongfully exercised the right of 
interference, being warranted only to observe the policy 
of " laissez faire et aller." (That is, in as much as 
everything would develop itself best by itself, or by 
necessity of nature it would be best to let things have their 
own course). 

Now, in expressing an opinion on physiocratism, it must 
be admitted, that a certain right of existence cannot be 
denied to it. Nay more, when compared with feudalism, 
we must recognize in this system a considerable progress. 
But nevertheless, it cannot be denied that serious errors 
cling to it, which in the course of time have exerted a 
detrimental influence. Its fundamental mistake is the 
attempt, to build itself up on the false basis of those so- 
called rights of nature and of a natural development. 
Misled by the speculative enlightening philosophy of the 
times, the physiocrats proceeded from something imagin- 
ary, and untenable, and paid no regard to the real wants 
and primary conditions of national economy. As a 
natural consequence, they laid the foundation to an 
economical division of society, which in the subsequent 
periods has worked disastrously. This has been espe- 
cially the case since the senior master of classical economy, 
Adam Smithy in his book : " Wealth of Nations," has ar- 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 47 

ranged the respective doctrines of the physiocrats into a 
•scientific system. 

In England at that time serfdom was actually, though 
not by law, abolished. Industry, commerce, and navi- 
gation, had been raised to an astonishing degree of pros- 
perity. Labor, there in the economical, as well as the 
scientific movements of the people, stood in the fore- 
ground. Yet even here, the mercantilistic idea was pre- 
valent, consequently political economy was made an 
object of the supervision of the state. 

Adam Smith, on the other hand put forth efforts to free 
it in every respect from the civil guardianship, and to place 
it independently on its own foundation. In his personal 
intercourse with the physiocrats and encyclopedists of 
France, he had found ample opportunity to learn their 
tenets. In his own religious views he evidently stands on 
the ground of the empiric materialistic drift of his time. 
Hume, Rousseau, and Kant had essentially influenced 
the religious conceptions of Smith, as has been demon- 
strated by Onken in his book : " Smith und Kant." 

Now, as for the system of this great economist, it is 
well to observe, that it is a well formed, scientific super- 
structure, reared and enlarged on the basilary principles 
of physiocratism. As its cornerstone may be considered 
the axiom: i 'Industry or human labor, is the source of 
all wealth." And it will be all the more productive and 



48 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

renumerative, the more it will be able to produce goods 
for exchange. Free, unchecked self interest is always, to 
be regarded as the only impellent force in economic life 
and activity, and this for the following reasons : 

First — Because self-interest, according to this system, 
is an inherent law of nature; secondly, it alone is capable 
of stiring up the capitalist to undertakings (enterprises) ; 
thirdly, because, all activity springing from it, is better 
calculated than external force or influence to advance the 
economic welfare of the community, and to harmonize 
the various interests. 

For each economic person the following alleged indis- 
putable laws of nature are claimed: First — The absolute 
right in all relations of economic life and intercourse, to 
be allowed to move about free and unobstructed, and to 
be entitled to the same rights as others. From the nature 
of the case, of course, ungrown persons (children) and 
women form the only exceptions. Secondly, the natural 
right, to possess at will and in every possible way private 
property or capital, as a means of production, and to dis- 
pose of the same in an absolute manner even to abuse; 
thirdly, the full power to make contracts with others for 
the purpose of securing self interest; and lastly, the pre- 
rogative by will and testament to dispose of the acquired 
possessions, even beyond the limits of natural life. In 
the sphere of state polity, this system admits the right of 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 49 

interference, but like the physiocrats it insists that all func- 
tions consequent thereto, are to be restricted to such ex- 
ceptional cases, which private economy is unable to man- 
age successfully, as for example, the maintaining and 
administering of public justice, general education, and 
the guaranty of military protection ad extra. This latter 
position is especially defended by the so-called Manches- 
ter school, founded 1839 as the extremest faction of the 
followers of this system. 

Two most important political events gave a mighty im- 
pulse to this liberal economical movement, namely, the 
outbreak of the French Revolution, and the Declaration 
of Independence of the United States. The former with 
its worldshaking success, added materially to the breaking 
apart of the morbid feudal institutions, while the latter 
opened a wide door to free trade, production, and con- 
sumption. 

The new order of things was hailed by thousands, as 
the dawn of a new and prosperous era. Actually it came to 
pass what had been predicted of its rapid progress and 
spread, namely that during the coming generations it would 
rule the world. The classical economy, founded by 
Smith and Ricardo, is swaying its sceptre in every civil- 
ized country of the globe. And what is more than that, 
until very recently high and low have considered, "Its 
dogmas, as Roesler, Die Grundlehren, etc., says, as the 



50 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

irrefutable results of strictly scientific researches, its con- 
ceptions as admirable products of the nicest and deepest 
labor of thought, and its practical usefulness has appeared 
raised above every doubt. To question the doctrines and 
tenets of this theory was considered unnecessary and 
inadmissable, if not dishonest, a crime against sound 
human reason, nay, what is worse, as an attack on the 
thought of liberty of the present time." 

And yet, a closer examination of Smithianism reveals 
many a weak point, that invites our criticism and calls 
forth our decided dissent. 

Let us look, for example, 

I. AT ITS INNER VALUE. 

When we consider the circumstances under which the 
system of free competition sprung into existence, and 
keep in our minds the generating powers, giving life to it, 
then its origin is, certainly, not calculated to arouse our 
enthusiasm, especially when we, as we ought to, bring it 
to the test of the Word of Truth. For even this con- 
densed historical review has convinced us, that in econo- 
mics this industrial system exhibits but the deposit or 
sediment of the naturalistic, materialistic f and rational- 
istic tendency of the times. It was born out of that 
spirit, whose characteristic signature is an entire breaking 
loose from all Divine authority and every higher order. 
The so much applauded classical economy of Smith and 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 5 1 

his followers is evidently based on that well-known 
" Naturalism," which from that time on to our days has 
wielded such a pernicious influence. This is manifested 
from the fact that the entire system in all its laws, regu- 
lations, considerations, aims, and ends, is governed by 
the hypothesis of an absolute and abstract order of 
nature, ruling social and economic life, as well as the 
material world. Smithianism does not deduce the neces- 
sary laws for industrial movements from man, as the 
most vital, because self-conscious moral and account- 
able factor of production. Neither does it reflect that 
on account of the mental, spiritual, and religious nature 
of man, human life in all its manifestations is to be 
governed by higher, than mere natural and material laws. 
Man in this system is considered only from the stand- 
point of materialism, namely, as a natural force to be 
employed and recompensed in the process of production 
as every other power of nature. To prove this allow 
me, first, to call your attention to the position which 
labor occupies in the present industrial system. Its 
avowed "Naturalism" does not allow it to regard this 
primary factor of production, as a professional achieve- 
ment of a human and moral being, but merely as a 
technical action, intended for a technical effect. Natur- 
ally, therefore, the laborers are not considered as a dis- 
tinct class of society, forming a potent element in the 



52 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

cultural development of mankind — but only as an other 
class of technical means, which must come under the 
same laws, which regulate the production and exchange 
of goods. Hence labor appears in the market for sale 
under the same conditions, that rule the purchase of 
every other article of merchandise. And as a necessary 
and natural consequence, the workman is engaged and 
renumerated according to the law of demand and supply. 
In other words, merely external circumstances and 
mechanical relations decide the value of labor, fix the 
height of wages, and determine the weal and woe of the 
laborers. But placing ourselves on the foundation of 
Christian principles, can we for a moment doubt, that 
such purely material considerations are anything but 
materialistic? 

Moreover, when labor is represented as the only source 
of private and public wealth, such a view is but the logi- 
cal consequence of the naturalism pervading the whole 
liberal system. For if in the production of wealth gen- 
eral causes, over which the individual has no control, were 
recognized labor would loose its prestige and its claims. 
But it is a daily observation, that the so-called " Con- 
junctures " of trade and traffic, that is: " The totality of 
technical, economic, social, and judicial conditions of 
society," exercise a mighty influence on the formation of 
private or public gain or loss. Very often, and that par- 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION, 5£, 

ticularly under the reign of free competition, weal ancT 
woe of the individual are dependent on the co-operation 
of these external agencies, so that he is by no means 
always the manufacturer of his own luck or misfortune; 
but many a time merely the victim of unfavorable econo- 
mic combinations, and questionable transactions, or the 
darling child of ever prosperous contingencies. Or in 
more accurate and becoming language, All-ruling Provi- 
dence, and by his permission, the conduct of man to man 
is not to be left out of account, when the question as to 
source of human welfare is raised. But this fact is over- 
looked, yea on purpose set aside by the system of the 
physiocratic school. Hence no attention is paid to those 
social and moral regards, and duties, which result from 
the recognition of this all-important truth. Smithianism 
is guided only by material or natural considerations. 
How far the axiom, that labor is the only source of wealth 
by a process of reasoning, has been instrumental in pro- 
ducing socialism, will appear in our next lecture. 

The extreme materialistic character of the system of 
free competition is especially evident from the position to 
which it raises self-interest. It is true this natural impulse 
is found in every human being, and even in Holy Scrip- 
ture, it is recognized as an important element of human 
activity and self-preservation, [i Thess. iv : n, et seq. ; 
I Tim. v. 8} But when physiocratism elevates self- 



54 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

interest to the import of a law of nature, and declares it to 
"be the exclusive motive power in economy and industry, 
then it hands itself over completely to materialism. For 
it is the most essential characteristic of materialism to 
transform a mere necessity of nature into a binding coer- 
cive law for the social and economic life of man. So 
in this case, self-interest furnishes an inducing reason, 
or an impulse for the human will and its resolutions — we 
all heed its promptings more or less, and are led by it in 
our actions. But that does not imply, that in all these 
cases self interest acts upon our decisions with the power 
of an irresistible law of nature. On the contrary, when 
we lift ourselves above the conceptions of the naturalistic 
view of the world; when we place ourselves under the 
enlightening influence of the spirit of Christianity, then we 
become aware of the fact that self interest has degenerated 
into selfishness, egotism, avariciousness, etc.; and that, 
on that account it ought not in every case decide our 
actions. In other words, the Christian conscience feels 
constrained to subject its urgings to the ruling of the 
Divine law of love to God and to man, as the highest aims 
and ends of his life. Political economy, undoubtedly, 
gravely violates the Divine precepts and principles of jus- 
tice, equity, and philanthropy, when it assigns to self 
interest the import of a dogma, and considers it the pri- 
mary, as well as the final purpose of all social and econ- 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 55 

omic movements. Its materialism is evident, and will 
appear still more so, when we examine its pretended 
claims. 

As was stated at the beginning, the liberal economy, 
in full harmony with its basal naturalism, has not only 
asserted, but also obtained legal recognition of the follow- 
ing four laws : The law of absolute liberty of the economic 
person. The absolute right to private property or product- 
ive capital. The right of free contract. And the absolute 
disposal of possessions by means of will and testament. As 
the liberalistic literature of the former, as well as of the 
present century considers self-interest of the same neces- 
sity and import, as the laws of the material world, it does 
not hesitate to affirm that the economic acts of man, pro- 
ceeding from the human will, are also subject to the nat- 
ural laws. And as self-interest is the only motive power 
impelling man to actions, it must have absolute sway, 
must not be checked. The fallacy of such reasoning, is 
obvious, as we have seen already. If, indeed, the alleged 
laws or rights were natural in the sense claimed for them, 
then they would have been in operation at all times, and 
in every place, where economic subjects were found. But 
of such a universal existence and activity of natural social 
laws, history knows nothing. Smithianism commits a 
serious blunder by looking upon the entire economic de- 
velopment, as upon a natural organism, which out of itself 



56 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

took the present form, nay which could not but assume 
such a shape. It is true, the present economic orders 
and formations are not the product of arbitrariness, — they 
present a historic development. But the system of econ- 
omy or industry is, nevertheless, also an artificial organ- 
ization, which has been created and planned for a specific 
purpose through the agency of acts of the human will 
and by rational calculation, dexterity, and energy. For 
this reason it is folly to talk about economic rights, as 
natural laws, they are merely temporary rules and regula- 
tions, by which, for the time being, industry, trade, com- 
merce, etc., are governed, and that by common consent 
or otherwise. 

It is equally absurd and perverse to claim absoluteness 
for the exercise of these economic rights. 

This idea proceeds from a disregard of the relation of 
man to his God, and to his fellowmen. It ignores the 
fact, that the social conditions of the individual are but 
the result of the only absolute will of his Maker, and the 
sovereign workings of his providence. It sets aside the 
obligation, springing out of man's utter dependence on 
his God, to use all his social privileges with a view to his 
accountability to the Supreme Ruler of the universe. The 
erroneous conception, of liberalism also fails in perceiv- 
ing, and carrying out the right relation of man to man. 
Unfortunately, ii has succeeded in establishing the pres- 



REIGN OF FREE COMFEXlTiUW. 57 

ent social laws, to make its utterly false conception of 
society the legal basis of those economic rules and orders. 
In the sense of the liberal economy, society is not an inner 
unity, but an external coexistence of human beings. 
Hence the individual is independent, autocratic, and 
autonomic. But the perverseness of such an idea is evi- 
dent. The individual is not only dependent on the histor- 
ically developed society, of which either by birth or other- 
wise, he forms a component part, but innumerable rela- 
tions of life render him dependent on the community in 
general, as well as on the separate parts thereof. 
Any social or economic right, therefore, that he may enjoy, 
he possesses by and through the commonwealth, and that 
with the implied understanding, that he exercise his privi- 
leges not only for his own benefit, but also for the welfare 
of his fellowmen, and especially for the higher purposes of 
the body politic. The very idea of society is based on the 
principle . of the Divine law of love to men. Hence the 
asserted absoluteness of private rights is a materialistic 
assumption. 

Entering, however, into particulars and beginning with 
the alleged right of absolute liberty of the economic per- 
son, it will be noticed, that since the latter half of the last 
century this is considered as the only preliminary 7 condition 
for the attainment of private and public property. Hence 
the right is claimed for each individual, to enter the econ- 



58 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

omic race-course without being physically compelled 
thereto, or restrained from it. Liberty is demanded, to 
r produce at any time, and in any place, also the right with- 
I out regard for the interests of others to turn their unfav- 
j orable physical, mental, and economic circumstances to 
\ self -ad vantage. 

Now, it cannot be denied that economic liberty is the 
most essential means for the promotion of production. 
Nevertheless, liberalistic legislation, has made a grave 
mistake in legally sanctioning the principle of absolute 
liberty in the form in which materialistic economy pre- 
sented it. For, as Roesler, truly says [p. 47]: "The 
law-giver has not only to consider the interest of production 
and of the producers, but he has also, when he orders leg- 
islative measures for the advancement of production, to 
inquire how far they will also serve a just and humane 
distribution; what influence they will have on the forma- 
tion of the personal condition of the workman, upon 
family life and other moral conditions; and how they will 
bear upon the realization of the moral objects of the 
state." But it is a sad fact that neither political economy 
in formulating private rights, and legislation in issuing 
the same, on the whole has not paid that attention and 
consideration to these vital regards, which it ought to 
have done. It is for this reason, that the right in ques- 
tion for the greatest part has worked in and for the 



REIGN OF FREE COI.IPETITION. 59 

interest of the economically strong, while to the weaker 
elements of society it has proved a disadvantage. But 
a law that gives full sway to egotism, that does not take- 
into account the vast inequality of the economic subjects, 
and that merely aids the material pursuits of society, such 
a law cannot stand when tested by the Divine principles of 
justice and equity. 

The same is true with reference to the second asserted 
claim of the liberal system: The absolute right to private 
property or productive capital (jus utendi et abutendi re 
sua). Liberalism defends this claim by pointing us to its- 
absolute necessity for the economic process. It is said / 
to be the only powerful incentive to saving, by means of I 
which the wasted or worn-out means of production are \ 
always replaced, and the great and puzzling problem of '' 
furnishing the necessary means for the satisfaction of all 
possible economic wants of the people is solved. From 
fchese facts, then, is deduced the natural right of the 
individual not only to possess private property, but also 
to increase the same to any possible amount and freely to 
use it for the various purposes of production. 

In replying to this reasoning, we do not for a moment 
hesitate to admit, that thus far no other economic factor 
has been able to reach better or even the same ends, that 
private property has done. Nay, more than that: Private 
property rests as to its right of existence in the will and 



60 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

designation of God, as we have seen in our previous 
lecture. But notwithstanding, yea just on account of 
that admission, we maintain against this asserted right 
the same objections that we have raised against the 
naturalism and the principle of absolutism, underlying all 
these pretended claims. For the very fact that property 
is an ordinance of the Creator, lifts it above the will, the 
arbitrariness, or pleasure of the individual, as well as of 
society in general. Hence, the dispositions of posses- 
sions must be in harmony with the declared authoritative 
purposes of God. But if anywhere in industry, it is in 
the position assigned to private property, where political 
economy has ignored Divine principles, and allowed the 
unchristian conceptions of the Roman law to formulate 
its legal social relations. For all the privileges de- 
manded, as above stated, for the accumulation and appli- 
cation of productive capital, are not prompted by that 
objective moral law, which has emanated from the being 
of the Supreme Law-giver, but by the dictates of egotism. 
But the Roman law on this point, as has been justly re- 
marked, is but the legal expression of grandiose egotism. 
Besides, the present ruling system of industry does not 
make any moral demands on the acquisition of property, 
nor on its disposition. All that is required of the econo- 
mic person is the prevention of an open conflict with 
the rights of another — exactly the position which 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 6 1 

the Roman law observes. Judging, however, from the 
standpoint of the Word of Truth, we are compelled to 
declare this Roman, pagan conception, as standing in 
direct opposition to the biblical idea of the right to prop- 
erty. If our former exposition is correct; then the indi- 
vidual right in this respect emanates from the moral law 
of God. Consequently, it is in force whether the econo- 
mic person is enabled to maintain it or not; or whether 
the state guarantees it to him or not. But in accordance 
with that higher law, every acquisition must be "well- 
acquired," must in every case be obtained by morally 
allowable means in order to become property, otherwise 
it is considered as theft. Besides, every righteous posses- 
sion puts the owner thereof under solemn obligation, to 
use and apply the same to moral ends and purposes. 
Now measure the right in question by these Divine rules 
and requisites, and its materialistic character becomes 
obvious. 

The right to free contract is supported, by calling our » 
attention to the fact, that the individual could not employ 
his faculties and material means to his own, or the advan- 
tage of others, unless the privilege be granted to him to 
associate himself with others for the purpose of securing 
a more profitable and expeditious mode of production. 
By so doing the scattered physical, intellectual, and in- 
dustrial forces, are combined to an harmonious action 



62 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

and achieve astonishing results. The capitalist is enabled 
by means of a division of labor, and by producing on a 
larger scale in a shorter time to repay himself, and to 
satify the economic wants of the community sooner and 
more effectively. 

Now justice demands that we give all well deserved 
credit to the achievements accomplished by way of 
partnership, associations, and wholesale trade, and manu- 
facture. There is, likewise, neither morally nor economi- 
cally anything to be said against the principle underly- 
ing the right of contracting, for the purpose of gaining 
larger advantages. But at the same time, it must be 
maintained that the form in which this economic right is 
presented, and legally recognized entirely ignores the 
higher law of God, as well as the social law of common 
interest. Thus, for example, every contract as to the 
compensation of labor is considered legally valid, as 
long as the parties concerned by their own free will give 
their consent to the stipulations of the agreement. 
Neither may any of them claim a right or privilege, that 
cannot be deduced from the express terms of the bargain 
made. An appeal to a higher law is out of question. 
But there is just the point, where this pretended right 
fails to come up to the Divine standard. It utterly disre- 
gards the claims of common interest, and permits the 
individual to take every possible advantage of the un- 



REIGN OP FREE COMPETITION. 63 

favorable physical, intellectual, and industrial conditions 
of others. How far in this respect, it has caused enor- 
mous evils, will be considered presently. 

The physiocratic idea of the right of disposing by will I 
is closely connected with its wrong view concerning prop- 1 
erty. If a person by a law of nature is permitted to use 
his possessions at will, it very naturally follows that hej 
can dispose of the same even beyond the limits of his nat-^ 
ural life. Besides, there is, undoubtedly, a great deal of 
truth in the assertion, that persons are more apt to save 
and to accumulate their savings, when they can rest 
assured that they will be preserved intact to their heirs. 
And who would gainsay the assertion, that each individual 
saving adds also to the national wealth and lifts industry 
to a higher standard. All this is very true; neither would 
we question the correctness of the opinion of the great 
jurist, von Scheele, when he says : "Property and the right of 
making a will belonging thereto, are without doubt, the 
necessary and natural foundations of human society. 
They are so necessary and natural for social man as air 
and light are for physical man. For, in order that a higher 
culture can develop itself at all, the regulation and order- 
ing of the privileges of the members of a commonwealth 
concerning the things by which they live, is indispensable. 
Especially, the distribution of the economic goods among 
the living, and the re-distribution of the same, in case of 



64 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

death, must be done according to principles previously 
determined and valid in general." 

But all this does not prove that the present institute 
and order of inheritance is the only perfect and just one. 
It is well known that the same is derived from the old 
Roman conception of right. But that concerns itself ex- 
clusively about the individual, and does not recognize any 
regard for society. Now this liberal doctrine just over- 
looks the important fact, that the industry and gain of the 
individual is not possible except in connection with the in- 
dustry and trade of society. From this, as well as from 
the state, each industrial individual constantly receives 
assistance in acquiring wealth, though very often it may 
not be known to, or acknowledged by the economic sub- 
ject. Consequently a part of the economic success is 
always due to the community even if it cannot be determined 
in so many round figures. The above named jurist, von 
Scheele, therefore, states the case correctly when he pro- 
ceeds: "Now, whereas the body politic always steps in, in 
case of failure on the part of the economic individual, by 
means of provisions for the poor or other subsidiary insti- 
tutions, while taxes in general are to be considered merely 
as a recompense for furnishing and granting the founda- 
tion for economic life and activity, which, indeed, would 
not be extant in its present form without the regulation 
on the part of the state, therefore the title of the common- 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 65 

wealth to a joint participation in the economic successes 
by way of hereditary right, cannot be doubted." Hence 
the assertion of the physiocratic school concerning this 
fourth pretended natural right needs correction. Of 
course, it is entirely within keeping of the tendency of the 
whole system, which like the Roman right recognizes 
nothing but the egotism of the individual, and unfortun- 
ately, ''Right is the religion of egotism. " 

Utterly false is finally also the physiocratic Manchester * 
idea concerning the state. According to it the duty of/ 
the same consists merely, in the production of secur-\ 
ity or protection. That is to say, to it is assigned the 
part of a night-watchman, whose duty it is to guard the 
safe of the rich, as Lassalle expresses it. It is true, the 
first object of the state is to create in the interior or 
home-department rules of laws for its subjects, and to 
maintain the same ad extra. But certainly, its functions 
are not exhausted thereby. Its aim and end is also cul- 
ture and welfare in general; and this feature of its pur- 
pose results from its moral nature or character. In this 
respect the state is bound to provide those conditions and 
relations, by which the physical, economical, ethical, and 
religious interests of the individual, as well as of society 
can be promoted. But how is the state to fulfill this 
mission, unless directing, controlling, and restraining 
power, is given to it? Of course, egotism is somewhat 



■€6 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

checked, when such a prerogative is granted to the state; 
and, as the entire system is built on self-interest, we need 
not wonder at all, that one of the most important func- 
tions is denied to the civil organism. Physiocratism is 
nothing but individualism, while the fundamental idea of 
the state is the securing of the common interests of all, 
i. e., of society against any threatening particularism. 
Consequently social circumstances may not only permit, 
but even require the state, energetically to interfere with 
the economic management of the individual, as well as of 
national economy in general. And in fact this indisputa- 
ble right is exercised in various ways by each government, 
and that not in accordance with, but in spite of the physi- 
ocratic doctrine. But whether this civic function re- 
ceives its full attention, is a different question which, 
however, will be an object of later consideration. 

Now, summing up the whole thus far, we are justified 
in saying, that the system of free competition rests on 
entirely false principles, axioms, and claims. And they, 
single and collective, are directed to one sole end: the 
^establishment of individualism or egotism. The natural 
consequence is the atomizing of society and all its inter- 
ests. Here then, we have just the opposite of what was 
intended by that wonderful economic legislation of the Old 
Testament,and by the introduction of the spirit of Christian- 
ity of the New. A reform, therefore, is highly necessary. 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 67 

But here, we are met with an imposing array of 
brilliant successes, which free competition pretends to have 
achieved. In every possible tune, the advantages of this 
economic system over all the others preceeding it, are 
sung, and the avowers of the Manchester idea see noth- 
ing, but sheer gain and excellence in it. For this reason 
we are compelled, secondly, to examine a little more 
closely 

ITS OUTER ADVANTAGES, 

in order to be enabled to form a correct opinion as to its 
adaptation to social purposes. 

And, here let me say at the outset, that it would be 
folly to deny the astounding progress that has been made 
in the sphere of economic activity and enterprise, since 
private capital has assumed the reign. For example, the 
technical improvement of the method of production, the 
essential diminution of the productive expenses, the 
enormous augmentation of industrial goods on the one 
band, and the shortening of the time of labor on the 
other, — all these and other achievements are things 
which the feudal times did not in the least anticipate. 
Besides, the division of labor has developed to a marvel- 
ous degree human talent, art, and inventive faculty, and 
rendered known and unknown powers serviceable to in- 
dustrial ends. In like manner facilities for traveling, 
locomotion, and international inter-communications, have 



68 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

been called into existence, that leave former times en- 
tirely in the shade. Socially and economically the 
physiocratic system has worked a complete revolution, 
and if the present indications do not entirely deceive, 
then industry has but reached the eve of still greater 
improvements and facilities. All this must be admitted. 

But at the same time we hold, that all these beneficial 
and surprising results are not produced by the system 
with the necessity and force of natural laws, as the ad- 
mirers of it would have us believe. Justice requires us 
to say with the great economist Wagner: " Free competi- 
tion possesses but the tendency to such advancements, 
but that does not invest it with any positive merit." 

On the other hand when we place opposite the indus- 
trial gains, the numerous evils and disadvantages, which 
are the logical consequences of this system, and which 
actually have been originated by it, then its boasted 
excellencies begin to appear rather in a doubtful, nega- 
tive light Only a few of them we will subject to a closer 
consideration. 

Ever}'' system of political economy, that lays claim to 
superiority or preeminence, must be able to prove, that it 
not only promotes the interests of a few, or of a small 
minority of the economic subjects; but that it creates and 
divides the national income in such a manner, that the 
totality of the population is enabled justly to participate 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION, 6$ 

in the distribution of wealth. Each advancement made 
on the economic field of human activity must transform 
itself into a progress of the total welfare of the whole peo- 
ple, if it is to be considered as a step in the right direc- 
tion 

Now, the question arises whether the system of free 
competition has secured a comparatively equal distribu- 
tion of the national gain, or even attempted it. Unfortu- 
nately, we are constrained to say no; nay more, to assert 
that it has done just the opposite. And could we reason- 
ably expect any other result? Certainly not; for a system 
which is constructed on the foundation of erroneous prin- 
ciples, as we have mentioned them before, and whose, 
aspirations are all centred in egotism, such a system, 
under the control of the sinful disposition of human nature 
and supported by the present order of society, must of" 
necessity create injustice, discord, and tyranny. The 
reasons for this are obvious. For first, under such a. 
system it is but natural, that those elements of society 
that are more favorably situated will always come out vic- 
torious and thus make free competition illusive, from the 
very start. People are, it is well known, by nature very 
unequal as respects their physical, mental, moral, and econ- 
omic condition and capability. Now it is true, some of 
these inequalities may be ameliorated, or even be removed 
entirely by means of training, culture or legal protection. 



70 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

But daily experience and observation confirm the fact, 
that the great mass of people have been compelled to enter 
the economic arena under extremely disproportionate con- 
ditions and prospects. The result could not be doubtful, 
in most of the cases those stronger at the outset obtained 
the prize, while the weaker remorselessly were pushed 
aside. On the one hand all-devouring monopolies have 
been formed, and domineering capitalists arisen, while on 
the other hand we notice a host of dependent wage-earners. 
That is, society has been gradually split into differently 
situated classes, which socially and economically are 
getting more and more solidified. And what makes it all 
the worse, the defenders of the system coolly look upon this 
fact as the natural result of the Darwinian law of combat; 
nay, they even hold that it is an immense gain for the 
development of industry in general. Thus purely human 
volitions and actions are perverted into necessities of 
nature, and the eyes and the hearts are shut against the 
material, social and moral injuries inflicted upon society 
by such glaring disruptions. 

But there are also, secondly, unscrupulous elements 
that enter the economic combat. They, of course, will 
watch every opportunity to further their egotistic, selfish 
ends, even at the expense of the ruin of others. To this 
class, any and all means or measures are- allowable, "The 
use of which does not bring them openly into conflict with 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 7 1 

the statute book." Now, it will be seen very readily, 
that the entire structure of the system of free competition 
is calculated to aid and countenance such nefarious ele- 
ments, especially by the right of free contract. How far 
it has done so will be apparent when we look at the moral 
standard by which in general business transactions are 
measured in our day. It is an open confession, made by 
hundreds of conscientious business men, that at present it 
is well nigh impossible to conduct business transactions on 
strictly honest principles, if one is determined to hold his 
own in the commercial world. And never-ceasing com- 
plaints about, and discoveries of adulterations of articles 
of merchandise, misrepresentations, impairing of weights 
and measures, villainous exchange manoeuverings, stock- 
waterings, sham auctions and sales, and a host of other 
disreputable transactions more than confirm such con- 
fessions. 

The system of free competition lays great stress on 
manufacturing and trading on a large scale. The more 
of the productive capital there is accumulated in the hands 
of one or more capitalists and circulated, or set in motion 
by them, the greater the net gain will be. For in this 
case, a division of labor and employment of machinery 
can be applied to much greater advantage than in a small 
business. Besides, by far a greater number of laborers 
can be concentrated for an industrial undertaking, and 



72 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

an agreement made with them by means of the system of 
wages. In this way, and by constantly increasing the 
working capital, the expense in production is reduced to 
a minimum, while the sources of income are multiplied. 
Hence wholesale industry has undoubtedly achieved 
very favorable technical and economic results. But at 
the same time this kind of production exhibits so many 
injurious effects, that its advantages are more than 
counterbalanced. A few may here be mentioned. 

It is a matter of constant observations, that the means 
of production are concentrating more and more in the 
hands of a few. Capital is clearly showing this tendency. 
The natural consequence is that smaller enterprisers are 
pushed aside, and the number of independent capitalists 
is continually diminished, while on the other hand that 
of depending wage-workers is rapidly increasing. For- 
mer masters and well-to-do producers by means of this 
business mania, have been driven into the ranks of impo- 
tent workingmen. Thus the entire social structure of 
society has changed. On the economic ladder there is 
room only on a few higher, or on numerous lower rounds, 
— those on which the middle class was accustomed to 
stand are breaking out more and more. And the lower 
strata of society either intuitively or by agitation have 
been awakened to a keen perception of this unnatural and 
oppressive state of affairs. They find themselves to a 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 73 

great extent shut out from the higher means of culture 
and education, and in many an instance even deprived of 
the necessary means of support. In other words a pro- 
letariate has been formed, that is, a social class of such 
as in the industrial turmoil have been thrown aside, 
and which now are becoming more and more conscious 
of that fact. As a natural consequence we observe dis- 
satisfaction, discord, contention, clashing and a social 
tension in general, that of late has assumed a threaten- 
ing attitude. 

Moreover, these social disruptions are nourished and 
brought to a sharper point yet, by the conviction forcing 
itself upon the minds of the laboring class, that the dis- 
tribution of the constantly increasing national income, is 
made to their still greater disadvantage. The working- 
men of to-day are fully aware of the fact that capital- 
ism has learned systematically, under the cover of the 
right of free competition, to make it impossible for them 
to share in a just manner the net gains. Thus, for 
instance, the marvelous technical improvements in the 
method of production, the introduction of machinery, 
have not only set aside thousands of laborers, but en- 
abled cold-blooded capitalism, to employ at a reduction 
of wages women and children. By so doing the prospect 
of men for work has changed for the worse, the value of 
labor is depreciated and the rate of wages brought down 



74 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

to the lowest point. English and continental wage and 
labor-statistics fully confirm this assertion. 

Now, " If the petty earnings of women and children, 
even finally would add to the income of the laboring 
family, some comfort might be drawn from these sad 
figures. But under the present circumstances, when the 
supply is always larger than the demand, a lasting in- 
crease cannot be thought of. The head of the family, 
who for weeks goes from door to door to find work, and 
who is always in danger of being thrust aside entirely, is 
satisfied at last with any amount of wages, that together 
with the earnings of his family will be sufficient for the 
prolongation of their distressed lives." (Schippel.) 

This sad condition is aggravated by the right of free 
contract and of unrestrained migratio?i. The former 
enables capitalists to draw anywhere on surplus working- 
men, while the latter gives them the power to fix their 
own conditions in the labor market, and to engage the 
necessary hands at such rates as the law of supply and 
demand will permit. Under such circumstances the 
applauded right of free contract, as far as it concerns the 
laborer, is simply a farce. For, if statistics are to be 
trusted, then on an average one-fifth of the working forces 
is at present and has for years been doomed to idleness. 
(Schippel, Mod. Elend, p. 56.) Thus to the workman 
is, indeed, left the liberty of his arms and legs; but as t 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 75' 

the rest, he is placed before the alternative, either to work 
at the rate proposed to him, or to go without work. 

These grave charges the liberal system has been trying 
to repel by calling our attention to the acknowledged 
amelioration of the conditions of the laboring class, when 
compared with that of former times, and to the increased 
number of deposits in the savings-banks. The surplus of 
unemployed forces in the market is attributed to the un- 
avoidable operation of the law of population, and to over- 
production. Let us test these objections by existing 
facts. 

Admitted even that the standard of wages, as well as of 
frugality, presents a more favorable aspect now, as com- 
pared with that of the laboring class of former times, the 
question still remains, whether on an average, the share 
of the workman in the net gains has been enlarged just in 
the same ratio, as private capital and the national income 
have increased. The objection will not hold good as long 
as this question cannot be answered in the affirmative. 
But when we consult the accessible statistics of all civil- 
ized countries, we receive a decidedly negative answer. 
For example the minute statistical labors of Baxter, 
Porter, Baines and others in England, touching this very 
subject, furnish indisputable proof "That the income of 
the laboring classes in spite of the enhanced productivity 
of labor has dwindled down to a constantly diminishing 



76 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

fraction of the entire national income; while on the 
other hand the income of the possessing classes 
exhibits a constantly swelling portion of the public 
profit. This result is not in the least affected by the 
larger number of deposits. For, according to the miscel- 
laneous statistics, an English Blue-book, a few years ago 
765,232 persons had deposited into the different savings- 
banks of England ^20,991,075; of that sum only jQi,- 
365,700 were owned by 560,172 depositors, while the 
remaining 205,060 depositors represented a sum of ^19,- 
625,375. That is, 74 per cent, of the depositors had a 
claim to only 61-2 per cent, of all the deposits, while 
on the other hand, 26 per cent, were in the possession of 
nearly 93 per cent, of the entire capital. But who were 
those 560,172 depositors? Not capitalists, but working- 
men; for none of their deposits exceeded ^"io. Now, if 
capitalism could furnish proof that this disproportion in 
the number and the amounts of deposits in savings-banks 
had constantly changed in favor of the working class, 
then it would be justified in drawing from that fact a con- 
clusion, as to the general improvement of the conditions 
of the workingmen. But statistics do not show such 
a favorable turn. On the contrary, the opposite will be 
shown in another connection. 

As regards overpopulation, the political economists of 
this school are accustomed to charge that to the 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 77 

account of the law of population, as formulated by MaU 
thus. According to it any given population has the ten- 
dency if no special disturbances occur, to double itself in 
the time of twenty-five years ; that is, it will advance from 
period to period in geometrical progression (i, 2, 4, 8, 16, 
etc.), while on the other hand, the means of subsistence 
at best can be multiplied by production only in arithme- 
tical progression, (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 etc.). The result of 
the relation of these two laws of nature to each other, is 
the fact that every population will soon reach the limit of 
the means of subsistence necessary for its maintenance; 
and when that boundary is overstepped, then poverty and 
misery are the unavoidable consequences. In other 
words, according to Malthus nature at the end does not 
provide sufficiently for the children she begets. Now, 
the liberal system under consideration has applied these 
reasonings of Malthus to the movements of political econ- 
omy, and thereby discovered the alleged calming fact, 
that the overcrowded labor-market, and the need, and 
misery of the working classes are but the natural work- 
ings of these laws. But such conclusions are by no 
means warranted. 

For, to speak in the words of Oettingen: "In no state 
of the civilized world, this sentence touching the move- 
ments of population can be substantiated by facts; 
because on the one side, as Malthus himself admits, an 



78 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

unchecked increase of the population takes place nowhere^ 
and on the other hand, if chemical analyses of late prove 
anything, then the productive power of the soil is, indeed, 
not inexhaustive but unquestionably great, and at all 
events practically incalculable, when such uncultivated 
or meagrely tilled tracts of land are considered, whose 
productiveness can be increased yet a thousandfold." 
Nay, more, social and economic statistics of that so 
highly civilized country, England, furnish us with the 
following facts: Industry, as well as the production of 
raw material, and farming clearly show a constant 
advance in the net gains of labor. This increase was act- 
ually enormous during the last thirty years, as will be 
seen from the national income of England when estimated 
in money. According to Young this amounted for Eng- 
land and Wales in the year 1770, to ^122,000,000, while 
at present it represents the stately sum of ^1,200,000,000. 
We notice, therefore, a tenfold increase since the year 
mentioned. Now what has been the advance of the pop- 
ulation during the same period? The statistics answer: 
England's population to-day is but three times as large as 
that of 1770. Compared with the progress of the popula- 
tion the national income, therefore, has tripled itself — 
indeed a convincing demonstration of the fallacy of the 
Malthusian theory. 

Besides, these surprising results have been obtained in 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 79 

spite of the fact, that on an average almost one-fifth of the 
workingmen, and the means of production have been lay- 
ing idle. Hence the productiveness of the country was 
always greater than the actual production, and still the 
latter shows a regular advance. 

Now look at the other side. The assessment registers of 
England show a steady advance of taxable property in the 
hands of the possessing classes. In many a case there is 
a five-fold enlargement. But the conditions of the work- 
ing people do not exhibit any such improvement. The 
increase has always taken place in the higher regions of 
society. According to the statement of Schippel (p. 63) , 
the laboring classes of England form 80 per cent, of the 
population, but they draw but 40 per cent, of the national 
income. The highest rank of society, however, represent 
not even 2 per cent, of the population and yet they com- 
mand almost the same amount of capital, namely 36 per 
cent. That is, 235,600 persons divide among themselves 
an income of ^297,200,000, while 10,961,000 must be 
satisfied with ^324,600,000. Most assuredly over popu- 
lation, ever recurring dull business seasons, and massive 
poverty do not spring from an utterly false law of nature, 
but rather find their explanation in the incontrovertable 
fact, that the consumption of the economic goods is un- 
able to keep step with the productivity of labor. In other 
words, massive poverty causes overpopulation; for "When 



80 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

the destitution of the masses and in consequence thereof 
the demand of goods remains stationary., then of course 
one portion of the laborers must become superfluous, as 
often as any progress in technics is made or the power of 
productiveness increased. But the totality of the labor- 
ers could be employed, when witsh an enlarged production 
of goods, their consumption among the lower classes 
would rise." (Schippel.) 

Finally, we are obliged to raise this objection against 
the present system of free competition, that instead of 
causing a harmony of interests, it has brought about the 
greatest discord. This result, although perhaps not in- 
tended, is nevertheless not surprising, because it has 
reversed the maxim of fellowship: "One for all, and 
all for one," into that of individualism: " Each for him- 
self and none for the other." The logical conse- 
quence shows itself in an unhealthy contention of inter- 
ests between the different sources of wealth, between 
industry, trade, commerce, and farming, as well as be- 
tween the enterprises of one and the same branch of econ- 
omy. Thus very often the efforts and pursuits of mem- 
bers of one family, of one and the same part of the com- 
munity, and of the different nations are at variance or 
come into contact with each other. How often have even 
bitter strifes and bloody wars been the final result of 
such combating interests! 



REIGN OF FREE COMPETITION. 8l 

Reviewing the whole we are driven to the conclusion, 
that free competition is an economic system, which in spite 
of its advantage over feudalism, as to its inmost nature is 
objectionable, and needs a thorough reform. Its injuri- 
ous results socially, economically, and morally con- 
sidered, demand speedy remedial counteractions; and 
this the more, as the working classes of our day cannot 
be hushed or appeased any longer by calling their atten- 
tion to the glorious achievements of an unexcelled sys- 
tem. With them, the Social Question has reduced itself, 
to the practical query: how much do we get of the net 
gain of production? Unless free competition answers this 
question more satisfactorily than it has done hitherto, it 
does not require the gift of prophecy to predict the 
future. But, forsooth, Socialism may have come in as 
the rescuing angel, to deliver society from a final wreck. 



LECTURE III. 



SOCIALISM AS TO ITS DEVELOPMENT, ITS 
TENETS AND PURPOSES. 



In our last lecture we merely touched upon the fact, 
that at an early date, opposition arose against the system 
of free competition, referring to the strictures that were 
made on its principles. We did, however, not say any- 
thing about a peculiar reaction that was caused by that 
system, and which at present is exerting itself with un- 
usual power and fierceness. But our brief survey of the 
history of the social question would be very incomplete, 
if we should not say anything about the socialistic move- 
ment running in direct opposition to free competition. 
Besides, that time is gone by when Socialism is simply to 
be ignored. The sooner society will trouble itself about 
it, the less it may be troubled by it. But first of all it 
will be necessary to obtain a correct idea as to the 
character and design of this economic movement. Allow 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 83 

me, therefore, at this time to lay before you a succinct 
statement as to its development, its tenets and purposes; 
the next lecture being reserved to its criticism. 

Socialism properly speaking, is the opposite of Indi- 
vidualism. In economics it presents that principle of 
order, which makes the interests of society and 
economy as of two totalities, the starting as well as 
the terminal point of its exertions; while Individualism 
pushes the interests and desires of the single economic 
subject into the foreground. Now, it has been justly 
said, that both of these principles are equally entitled to 
-existence and regard. Neither can exclude the other 
entirely without seriously damaging the interests of 
society and economy. The just and proportionate blend- 
ing together of the two, forms the proper solution of the 
social question. But efforts made to that effect are in 
our days not designated by the name of Socialism. We 
rather mean by it those exertions which aim at the entire 
-extinction of Individualism in order to make the social 
principle the exclusive order of society and economy. 
Socialism in its modern sense is the complete negation 
of individualism. This much for the meaning of the 
term; now let us look at its origin and development. 

It is generally assumed and asserted that Socialism in 
its present form, was the product of a few German cranks 
and knaves. What truth is there in this statement? 



84 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

As early as the year 1793 a certain William Godwin 
published a book in London, entitled: " An inquiry con- 
cerning political justice and its influence on general virtue 
and happiness." 2 vols. In this work the author distin- 
guishes " three degrees of property," or as we wouid 
term it, three forms of distribution of wealth or economic 
goods. " The first and simplest degree of property," 
Godwin continues, "is that, of my permanent right in those 
things, the use of which being attributed to me, a greater 
sum of benefit or pleasure will result, than could have 
arisen from their being otherwise appropriated." This 
principle, therefore, demands a division of property ac- 
cording to the needs and wants of the individual; a result, 
however, which Godwin does not expect unless a com- 
plete reformation of the spiritual and moral condition of 
mankind would take place. 

'• The second degree of property is the empire in which 
every man is entitled to the produce of his own industry, 
even that part of it, the use of which ought not to be 
appropriated to himself." This principle stands in oppo- 
sition to the first and does not appear to Godwin as 
natural. 

" The third degree is a system, in whatever manner 
established, by which one man enters into the faculty of 
disposing of the produce of another man's industry." 
(S. Menger, p. 42 ff). Property inherited, Godwin calls. 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 85 

" misnamed wealth, or merely a power vested in certain 
individuals, by the institutions of society, to compel 
others to labor for their benefit. " As to the relation of 
wages to income, for which no labor is rendered, Godwin 
cherished very unfavorable views. In order to remove 
these injurious conditions, he offers as a remedy "the 
dissolution of governments, the division of the historical, 
traditional state into independent sections, and the abol- 
ishing of legislative and executive state power. Only in 
extreme cases a national assembly is to be convoked. 
Individual economy as well as private property is to be 
continued, but each possessor thereof must be willing to 
resign his property for the benefit of others when necessity 
requires it. 

Now, please notice the fact, that Godwin is entirely dis- 
satisfied with the ruling economic system of his time, 
especially with the right in property obtained by the 
power of capital in " compelling others to labor for its 
benefit." That is to say, Godwin raises the very point 
which forms the fulcrum for the socialistic lever, applied 
to lift the present order of things off its hinges. His 
anarchistic views very fortunately remained without any 
effect on his time, but his socialistic theory exerted a 
noticeable influence; for in the year 1805 Charles Hall 
published a work: " The effects of civilization on the peo- 
ple in European states." In this and other writings Hall 



86 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

comes to the conclusion: ''That in consequence of the 
steady increase of wealth, productive labor of the poor 
was constantly multiplied, while on the other hand, the 
income of the rich from idleness was getting enormous." 
In England, so Hall asserts, four-fifths of the population 
did not receive more than one-eighth of the product of their 
labor,the rest falling into the hands of the employers, in the 
shape of ground-rent or profit of capital. In order to do 
away with such unjust conditions, Hall insists " that every- 
body ought to work as much as was necessary for the 
maintainance of his family, and, that every one ought to 
receive the full profit of his work." To accomplish this 
the English laws of primogeniture are to be abolished and 
** the refined industries" must be taxed heavily, so that 
the work of the poor will be restricted merely to the pro- 
duction of the necessaries of life. And as these two re- 
quirements are not sufficient yet for the end desired, the 
state has to expropriate the entire ground and soil, and to 
allot it permanently to the different families. But as 
these do not enlarge at the same rate, a re-division of the 
land will become necessary from time to time. 

The peculiar feature of this proposed system is the com- 
bination of collective or State property, with private or 
individual economy, for which combination Hall referred 
to the agrar system of the Spartans, the Jews, and the 
Jesuites in Paraguay as precedents. In this respect he 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 87 

advances a step nearer to the socialistic idea of these days, 
which demands collective property with collective manage- 
ment thereof. (Menger, p. 45 fL). 

A more specifically socialistic and matured system we 
discover in the views of William Thompson, a scholar of 
Bentham, and of Irish descent. In his work published 
1827: " An inquiry into the principles of the distribution 
of wealth most conducive to human happiness," he 
asserts the following as natural laws of distribution: 
" 1. All labor ought to be free and voluntary as to its 
directions and continuance; 2. All the products of labor 
ought to be secured to the producers of them; 3. All 
exchanges of these products ought to be free and volun- 
tary." 

Now, let me call your attention, just here, to the fact 
that Thompson starts from the same point from which, 
the system of free competition proceeds: from the right 
of personal liberty of action; and yet he reaches an en- 
tirely different conclusion, namely, the right of the 
laborer to the full products of his exertions. Thompson 
also, like Smith and his followers, considers labor as the 
only cause of exchange-value, but from this supposed 
fact he deduces the juridical consequence, that the pro- 
ducer of value is also entitled to the full benefit thereof. 
" Secure," he says, " to the producer the free use of what- 
ever his labor has produced." It is true, Thompson 



83 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

acknowledges that under the present order of things, the 
capitalist, to a certain extent, has a right to share in the 
products of labor in order to be repaid for the use of his 
buildings, machines, etc., but he does not want this 
restriction of the right to the full profit of labor to be 
made any further than absolutely necessary; and as for 
the actual carrying out of such a just principle of distri- 
bution, Thompson is very far from believing that under 
the present order of society it is, or can be done, express- 
ing himself thus on that point: " The productive laborers 
stript of all capital, of tools, houses and materials to 
make their labor productive, toil from want, from the 
necessity of existence, their remuneration being kept at 
the lowest, compatible with the existence of industrious 
habits. The measure of the capitalists, on the contrary, 
would be the additional value produced by the same 
quantity of labor in consequence of the use of machinery 
or other capital, the whole of such surplus value to be 
enjoyed by the capitalist for his superior intelligence and 
skill in accumulating and advancing to the laborers his 
capital or the use of it." 

Now, allow me to fix upon your minds the following" 
three points: i. Thompson considers it as a principle of 
right, that the producer of value should receive the full 
benefit thereof, with the exception admitted; but, 2. he 
does not get it; he is, on the contrary, kept at the lowest, 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 89 

compatible with the existence of industrious habits; and, 
3. he cannot get it, because under the present order of 
society capital claims the entire " additional or surplus 
value," produced by labor. Keeping in mind these three 
points you will directly discover in the writings of 
Rodbertus, Marx and Lasalle, exactly the same range of 
thought, the same reasoning and the very same language; 
to me a convincing proof of the great influence exerted 
by Thompson upon all the succeeding Socialists. 

As to his remedial propositions, Thompson suggests, 
above all, the establishment of communities, being in- 
fluenced by the views of Robert Owen. But rather in 
opposition to his primary principle, the distribution of the 
economic goods in these communities is to be made 
according to the individual wants, while each healthy 
member of society ought to furnish the same amount of 
work, the time employed being the measure of exertion. 
{Menger, p. 55-57). 

In this connection various other writings, as for ex- 
ample those of John Gray, T. R. Edmonds, J. F. Gray, 
etc., could be mentioned, but those adduced, undoubtedly 
are sufficient to show that the germs of the present social 
system, when considered in its scientific aspect, must be 
looked for in English soil. This will become still more 
apparent when the fundamental principle of Socialism; 
the right of the laborer to the full product of his labor, 



90 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

is kept in view. For, while the French Socialists of the 
eighteenth century, as Morelly, Mably and Baboeuf 
severely criticise the right to private property, as being 
the source of vice and egotism, none of them considers 
it as the means by which capital is enabled to prevent 
labor from enjoying the asserted right to its full benefit. 
Even Saint Simon (born 1760, died 19th of May, 1825) 
who has been styled the founder of Socialism, did not 
know the right to the full product; for he counts among^ 
the pre-eminently useful members of civil society, the 
most distinguished enterprisers and employers in the 
sphere of industry, trade and finance ; the very classes 
which modern Socialism accuses of drawing their wealth, 
out of the products of the labor of others. Of a some- 
what more lasting effect proved Fourierism j or the 
Ecole Societaire founded by Charles Fourier (born 1772,. 
died 1837), and spread especially by Victor Considerant. 
The same proceeds on the observation of great poverty, 
which cannot be removed by the prevailing system of 
private economy. Hence property in land and capital is 
to be expropriated and common management to be in- 
troduced. 

But strange to say, Fourier as well as his followers, 
were very far from adopting the principle that labor was 
entitled to its full product; on the contrary, they con- 
sidered a great inequality of possessions in their proposed 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. $T 

order of Society as unavoidable, as capital was to receive; 
four-twelfths, labor five-twelfths and talent three-twelfths 
of the entire income. 

In the meantime, however, the school of Saint Simon 
had taken a decided step towards the formation of modern. 
Socialism. Enfantin, as well as Bazard, called attention to 
the contrast between those that lived of their labor, and. 
those that were enjoying the products of the labor of others 
(travailleurs et oisifs). To them land rent and profit of 
capital, appeared as a tax levied on the workingmen by 
capitalists and owners of the soil, for the privilege of using- 
their means of productions. Against this slavery of capital 
(1'esclavage des capitaux) the St. Simonists on the 9th of 
February, 1 83 1, published their programme from which we 
take the following few sentences : ' ' We demand the aboli- 
tion of all hereditary privileges, without an exception ; we 
demand the emancipation of the laborers and the forfeiture 
of the right of idleness, which consumes and blasts them. 
. . . We demand that the fruits of labor of the work- 
ing classes, be not devoured by the idle classes, which 
are doing nothing nor save anything; who but love them- 
selves. We desire a social order completely based on the 
principle: To each according to his capacity, to each 
capacity according to its works. We demand clearly the 
gradual suppression of all tributes which labor pays to 
idleness, under the divers names of farm-rent, recompense. 



92 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

for manufacture and capital" (Menger, p. 67). As reme- 
dial measures the followers of this system suggest, among 
others, a universal association of the people, a theocratic 
organization of the state, and a transfer of the hereditary- 
right of the individual to the community. 

A somewhat peculiar position is occupied by Proudhon, 
who places himself on the fundamental principles of the 
later St. Simonists, by pleading for the right of the laborer 
to share in the net profit even after he had received his 
wages. He is also an avowed enemy of private property 
in its present form. But at the same time he bitterly 
opposes the utopistic measures of socialistic communism, 
and desires individual economy and free competition to be 
preserved. In order, however, to reconcile these seem- 
ingly conflicting ideas he proposes the creation of an ex- 
change or people's bank (Banque d'exchange, banque du 
peuple), which should make it possible to give a gratuitous 
credit (gratuite du credit). By means of this, he ex- 
pected land-rent and capital-profit to disappear. Proudhon, 
however, never saw that bank, as the necessary capital 
could not be raised. Fighting against Utopias he became 
the victim of another, as he was trying to break the power- 
ful influence of capitalism, guaranteed to it by right and 
usage, by an impracticable arrangement. 

Louis Blanc, another French Socialist, maintained that ' 
all revenues from any other source than labor, were un- 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 93 

just in themselves, but in the present order of right they 
had to be considered as absolute necessities. The econ- 
omic equality, so much talked of in his time among all 
Socialists, consists with him only in " that proportionality 
which will exist in a veritable manner only then, when 
each one, after the law written by God himself upon his 
organization, will produce according to the measure of 
his faculties, and consume according to his wants." 
(Menger, p. 114 n. 4). In order to accomplish this and 
to counteract the evil influences of free competition, L. 
Blanc demands that the state, as such, supervise produc- 
tion. In each branch of industry the state has to erect 
factories, shops, etc , and thus to call forth a competition 
with the individual undertakings, which in this way he ex^ 
pected to be compelled to fall in with the industries of the 
commonwealth. The state having thus obtained the 
upper hand, combines the similar manufacturies and 
Workshops into associations, in order to prevent any con- 
flict of private interests. This mechanism is to be en- 
larged until a harmonious working together of all kinds 
of industry, trade and commerce will be established. 
Louis Blanc, therefore, did not intend to introduce a new 
economic principle, his object was, rather, to give a new 
direction to the existing social and economic factors. 
But in as much as he instigated the laboring and poor 
classes to active advances, in order to obtain the political 



94 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

ascendency, he may be regarded as the founder of the 
social democracy. The working people expected from 
the introduction of his system the salvation from all mis- 
ery, but found themselves sorely disappointed and 
deceived, when after a few months of trial, the established 
national workshops proved a complete failure. Besides 
the revolution of the year 1848 for the present suppressed 
all socialistic movements, as it brought Ccesarism on the 
throne. 

THE SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM. 

Now, looking back for a moment, you will have ob- 
served that thus far all the socialistic efforts were moving 
more or less on a Utopistic ground. But during the 4th 
decennium of this century, a German school of Social- 
ists sprang into existence, which endeavored to give to 
Socialism a philosophical basis, especially to prove its 
principles of rights by philosophical deductions. The 
most prominent of that school is the well known trio, 
Rodbertus, Marx, and Lasalle, none of whom however 
can claim any originality as they are all dependent for 
their thoughts on the sentiments expressed by the fore- 
going English and French Socialists. 

Rodbertus sees in the different stages, through which 
economic development thus far has passed, merely histor- 
ical events, but not natural formations. Consequently he 
looks upon the individualistic method of production as 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 95 

well as on private property and capital as upon historical 
categories, which may be altered and supplanted by 
others. He begins his dissecting criticism at the point 
of the theory of value, as advanced by Smith, Ricardo, 
and others of that school. Rodbertus accepts the theory, 
but he pushes it to its extreme conclusions. Says he in 
his second Social letter: " I connect with labor of society 
a productivity, which in all branches of industry, and 
particularly also in all branches of farming has increased 
very highly, and whose further growth is unlimited. But 
the 'natural* laws, which in industry and trade, left to 
themselves, and allowing property in land and capital, 
govern the distribution of the social product, prevent 
society from deriving any benefit from this advancement 
of productivity; for, on the one hand these laws are the 
cause that this distribution assumes the form of an ex- 
change-trade, under the rule of which the private owners 
of society-property in land and capital, are not permitted 
to allow production at all, or none to a larger extent than 
the opposite, corresponding ability to buy, is able to man- 
age. On the other hand these laws again are the reason 
why not only the product is divided between the latter 
(the capitalists) and the working classes, but why also 
the share of the workmen in the product is constantly 
diminished and consequently the ability to buy, of the 
majority of society is always reduced. This latter effect 



g6 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

these laws bring about, by reason of the fact that labor, 
this creatrixof all productions, has also become an article 
of merchandise, which is paid, that is, receives its portion 
of the product according to the regulations of demand 
and supply. These laws under the present development 
of society turn out into a progressive measure to the dis- 
advantage of those that possess this article; that is, the 
laboring classes, just while the productivity is enhanced. 
Thus these natural laws of industry and trade have become 
the cause why the increase of wealth, which from its very 
nature is designed only as a means of furthering the wel- 
fare and happiness of society, is turned into an occasion for 
its disturbance. Thus society is held by a magic circle, and 
placed in fatal contradiction to itself. Out of this dele- 
terious circle, in which merely prejudices move it, society 
has to come out by substituting for the natural laws, as 
far as they are injurious, reasonable regulations." 

This reasoning leads Rodbertus to the conclusion that 
private property and capital is to be abolished. But as 
he is averse to all political, especially to every revolu- 
tionary agitation, and as in his opinion the prejudices of 
the possessing classes cannot be removed at once, he ex- 
pects, for this reason, an energetic interference from the 
state. He considers it its duty to regulate the question 
of wages, and gradually but peacefully to transmute the 
present state of things into that political order which shall 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 97 

be founded on merit or pure income-property. During 
this transition he is willing to allow to possession its full 
rent or revenue, if in the meantime the workingmen are 
permitted proportionately to participate in the general 
welfare. The plan of Rodbertus, undoubtedly, was pro- 
foundly conceived, and had not the least tinge of the 
present revolutionary socialistic movement. There is 
nothing of the hallucinations of an Owen or Fourier about 
it, who attempted a communistic commonwealth on a 
small scale. Rodbertus also had no sympathy with those 
of his time who advocated a division of the national 
wealth; his plan being, not the splitting up, but the unifi- 
cation of all private property and capital under the effi- 
cient direction and management of the monarchical state. 
After the decisive year 1870 in the history of Germany, 
he expected from Bismarck and the German empire an 
energetic attention to the social problem in the way pro- 
posed by him. Disappointed in this, he put himself in 
communication with the leading conservative socialists, 
without however, identifying himself with any social 
democratic measures. 

Of a decidedly different character is his contemporary, 
Carl Marx (born 181 8 at Trier), who, without doubt, 
took up the socialistic ideas of Godwin, Hall and Thomp- 
son, who, in the manner of Hegels dialectics, endeavored 
to digest and work them out critically and carry them 



98 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

into effect. Especially in his great work on "Capital" 
(1867) he proves himself a philosophic thinker and a reck- 
less critic, who regards it as his task to tear down to the 
very ground, the existing social and economic structure. 
His political career and final exile undoubtedly, exercised 
a moulting influence on his mode of thinking and literary 
diction. His sojourn in England afforded him a splendid 
opportunity of becoming acquainted with the economic 
conditions of the laboring classes, and to gather volumi- 
nous statistical material as to the social status of that 
country. 

Marx, first of all, subjects to an unsparing criticism, 
capital, especially capitalistic accumulation that is, the 
present formation of movable, speculative means and 
sources of industry and income. According to his opin- 
ion, capital does not in the least add any value to the 
product, but labor does; as Smith and Ricardo had asserted 
before him; but, under the existing mode of production, 
labor always receives, in wages, but a fraction of its value, 
the remaining part flows into the pocket of the capitalist: 
he, therefore, enriches himself by other peoples property, 
which in this sense appears as " theft," as Proudhon had 
declared it. This private accumulation of capital Marx 
designates as "cheating, taking in, plus-making or drain- 
ing others. Aside from this pressure, thus exerted on 
wages, this increase of capital is facilitated also by the 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 99 

extension of the time for labor, by technical acceleration 
of production, and by procuring cheap laboring men from 
other industrial centers. But, inasmuch as in the opin- 
ion of Marx under the present reign of the system of 
private economy or free competition, the individual is 
compelled to appropriate to himself this plus value or 
" theft," therefore, private capital and private industry is 
to be abolished and transformed into its opposite, into 
collective property, with public organization of labor. 
M Then the time of labor would be at the same time the 
measure for the individual share of the producer in the 
labor of the community, and would serve as a standard 
for the portion in the general product, consumable by the 
individual." (Schaeffle). 

This radical change of the existing circumstances, 
Marx did not endeavor to bring about by the initiation of 
social reforms, as Rodbertus contemplated, but expected 
it only by means of a proletarian revolution. Without 
reserve he gives this as his opinion as far back as 1848, 
in a "manifest," which he issued in the name of and 
for the " Communistic League Society," organized in 
Cologne and London, when he writes: " The Communists 
.assist (foster) every revolutionary movement intended 
against the existing social and political conditions. They 
openly declare that their purposes can only be reached 
by a forcible overthrow of all present orders of society. 



IOO SOCIAL QUESTION. 

May the ruling classes tremble before a communistic rev- 
olution. The Proletarians have nothing to lose except 
their chains, they have a world to gain by it. Proletar- 
ians of all countries, unite!" 

Marx never swerved from these revolutionary senti- 
ments; hence he regarded the organization of the " Inter- 
nationale" in the year 1864, more as an instrument for 
agitation and for kindling class hatred, than as a means 
of organizing the interests of the working classes. 

Now, when we compare Marx with Rodbertus, we at once 
discover a great similarity between their historical con- 
ception and judgment of the present abnormal economic 
conditions, so much so, that the question has been raised, 
whether Marx had not been influenced somewhat by the 
publications of Rodbertus. Be this as it may, it certainly 
admits of no doubt, that aside from these corresponding 
views Rodbertus in every other respect was just the oppo- 
site of Marx; for the former was of a thorough national 
bent of mind, while the latter had entirely lost his patriot- 
ism. Rodbertus exerted himself to remove the existing 
misery by calling upon the state to initiate the necessary 
reforms, hence his appeal to Bismarck. Even by his tem- 
porary connection with social democratic leaders he 
intended merely to exert a pressure from below on those 
on high. But Marx never believed in any reforms, but 
only in a complete clearing away of all economic and % 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. TOT 

political forms and regulations hitherto in force; and to 
this radical idea he clung with such a mania, that he 
never put the question to himself, in what manner social 
conditions could and should be reconstructed again, after 
a successful revolution should have demolished every- 
thing. 

As a theorist, Marx has rendered immense services to 
the socialistic movement. A certain Fr. Engels assisted. 
him to a great extent, especially by the publication of his. 
stirring work on "Die Arbeiterverhaltnisse Englands.'" 
(The Conditions of the Laboring Classes in EnglandjV 
He furnished, so to speak, the practical illustrations to 
the scientific deductions and sophisms of Marx. 

But however great the influence of these three last 
mentioned thinkers may have been on the promotion of 
Socialism as a science, their effect on the laboring masses-, 
cannot be compared with that of a fourth and last one to^ 
be mentioned, namely with that of Lasalle. Being 
eminently gifted, possessing a thorough philosophical 
training, the adroitness and readiness of a jurist, and an 
overwhelming power of speech, he has rendered marked 
assistance to scientific as well as practical Socialism, 
especially among workingmen. It is true, he advances, 
hardly any idea that had not been stated by French and 
the last named German socialists. He openly declares his. 
great indebtedness to Rodbertus; but what hitherto had. 



102 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

been imprisoned between the covers of scientific socialis- 
tic publications, Lasalle endeavored to unchain and bring 
down to a level with the understanding of the laboring- 
classes. His keen edged criticism he tries, above all, 
on the so-called iron law of wages, which he defines 
in the following words: " There is an iron law, 
which orders that the wages for the laboring classes, 
should, like the oscillations of the pendulum, always 
move around and about the lowest point of what may- 
even yet be sufficient for the necessaries of life required 
by the customary standard of life. When wages are higher, 
then more marriages are contracted and more children are 
born, and the competition of such as look for work, will 
in a short time reduce wages again to the least possible 
rate. When wages are lower a certain number of people 
have to perish on account of insufficient nourishment, so 
that while the supply is diminishing the demand for work- 
ing forces causes wages to increase; consequently wages 
can never move away, for a long period, from the lowest 
limit of what is required for the maintenace of life." 
When Bastiat Schulze objected to this definition and as- 
serted that capital-profit was composed of the wages for 
privations of the managers of a business, Lasalle replied 
in the following pointed sarcastic words: " What! Gain 
of capital wages of privations! European millionaires, 
ascetics, Hindoo penitents, pillar saints who stand on 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 103 

one leg on a pillar, extending, with out-stretched arms, 
bent-over body and pale features, a plate to the people in 
order to collect the reward for their self-denials! This is 
the real condition of society! How was it possible for 
me to ignore it? But, joking aside! While capital is that 
sponge which absorbs all product of labor and the sweat 
of the workman, and leaves to the laborer merely the 
necessaries of life, you have the hardihood to present to 
the workingmen the revenues of capital as a recompense 
for privations of capitalists ! " The objection that in 
the sphere of economy each one was the manufacturer of 
his own fortune or misfortune, and consequently was 
alone to be held responsible for his condition; Lasalle 
meets with a reference to the fatalistic influence of 
conjunctures, of the tie of social connections, of that 
chain, which combines all existing unknowable circum- 
stances. " The economic sphere," he continues, " dis- 
tinguishes itself from the juridical by that little differ- 
ence, that in the former, in our days, everyone is respon- 
sible for what he has not done, while in the latter, every- 
body has to answer for what he has done. Fortune plays 
ball with the supposed liberty of the individual, thrown 
upon his own resources; in this game, which unknown, 
and for this reason, uncontrolable powers play with him, 
the one is snatched high up into the bosom of wealth, 
while hundreds of others are thrown into the deep abyss 



104 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

of poverty. The wheel of social coherencies runs over 
them, their exertions, dilligence and labor, crushing and 
reforming the same." 

Now, in order to remove these evil circumstances, 
Lasalle demands the displacing of the capitalistic mode 
of production by means of a system, which would secure 
to each economic subject a more just distribution of the 
net national income. This, however, he does not expect 
to be achieved unless by subsidiary measures taken by the 
state. " It is only necessary," says he in this respect, " to 
do away with those individual advances, out of which the 
transfer of the result of production, and the assignment 
of all surplusses over the necessaries of life are made to 
the capitalist. Labor of society, mutual and common 
anyhow, must be prosecuted by the common mutual ad- 
vances of the same, and the result of production is to be 
distributed among all who have participated therein, to 
each, according to the measure of this work. The most 
easy transitory medium to accomplish this will be found 
in productive associations of laborers, hence these associa- 
tions must be, will be, even if the world should burst." 
But as the workmen are not in possession of the necessary 
capital, that being in the hands of the capitalists, the state 
is to make the required advances, while the associations 
have to form an organic union. In order, however, to 
obtain this assistance from the state, it will be necessary 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. I05 

for the laborers first, to gain influence over the govern- 
ment, by means of political representations in the parlia- 
ments, to bring about these social reforms. This being 
obtained, capital would become a dead, unfruitful instru- 
ment, subordinated to labor, the only standard of value. 
The solidarity of labor would at once remove the social 
misery, and, as the entire laboring class had become en- 
terprisers, each one would receive the full value of his 
work. 

The great activity of Lasalle reacted on Marx, who, 
from his standpoint, could not approve of the detail 
arrangements proposed by his energetic contemporary. 
A short time before Lasalle' s death, — he fell in a duel, 
fought on account of a woman, — Marx had succeeded in 
forming what is called, " The Internationale" He knew 
only too well, that his ideal state of the future, would 
never be organized unless the socialistic movement would 
become international. To make it such, was his constant 
effort and desire. But in this he would have failed entire- 
ly, had not the existing social conditions materially aided 
him. When, on the floor of the congress of laborers, 
held at the Haag, Guillaum, one of the delegates, re- 
marked, "that the Internationale was the invention of a 
smart man with an infallible social idea; but, that it was 
also the product of the surrounding social circumstances," 
both of these assertions are correct. Marx is without 



Io6 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

doubt, the founder of that powerful secret association,, 
but various causes had prepared the way for him. One 
of these was the fact, that the factors of the world-wide 
ruling system of economy, had become more and more 
international, especially movable capital. Everywhere; 
the laborers found themselves dependent on, and placed 
in opposition to the power of free competition, with all its 
evil consequences. In most of the civilized countries we 
notice the same contest between capital and labor, the. 
same discontent and class hatred glowing under the sur- 
face of society. Hence the silent and expressed desire 
of the working classes for closer union, even for interna- 
tional solidarity, in order to create a conformable coun- 
ter pressure against the overwhelming, overpowering, cos- 
mopolitan, unpatriotic capitalism. 

The first effort made in this direction, was, perhaps the 
founding of a laborer association in London, in the year 
1840, which comprised German, Hungarian, Polish, Dan- 
ish, Swedish and English workmen, and which put itself 
in communication with the Chartistic movement of that 
time. Out of this union sprang the," Society of the Fra- 
ternal Democrats," which stood in connection with 
similar societies in France, Belgium and Switzerland. 
This movement received new impulse in November, 1847, 
when a body of German Communists met in London. 
Marx and Engels led the meeting, and in its name, issued 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 107 

a «* Manifest," in which the purposes of these Communists 
were declared, as being perfectly identical with those of 
all proletarian associations with the only exception, " that 
they on the one hand defended common interests, inde- 
pendent of nationality and of the entire class of the differ- 
ent national disagreements; and on the other hand,, 
advocated the interests of that common movement through- 
its various stages of development, through which the 
contest between wage-workers and capitalists had to go." 
The Manifest closes with the noticeable appeal: " Prole- 
tarians of all countries, unite. ' ' An international congress 
was appointed for 1848, but the political upheaving of that 
year, and its final overthrow by state power, for a long 
time paralized the socialistic movement. It was not before 
1862 that it received new life and vigor again. The con- 
stant increasing economic misery, and extensive strikes, 
had again brought the working classes of Europe, espec- 
ially those in England on their feet, and driven them into 
the political arena. The London Exhibition brought a 
number of French laborers to that city as delegates, to 
seek a union with those of England. An exchange of 
opinions took place and the solidarity of interests of the 
working classes of the different countries was declared. 
But it was not until 1864 when Marx succeeded in realiz- 
ing his fervent desire, "to see a laborer association 
founded, comprising the most advanced countries of 



108 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

Europe and America, whose aim and end it should be, 
bodily to exhibit to the laborers themselves and to the 
Bourgeoisie and the governments the international charac- 
ter of the socialistic movement for the encouragement 
and invigoration of the Proletariate, as a terror to its 
enemies." In that year a great and imposing convoca- 
tion of laborers from all countries had been called to St. 
Martins Hall in London. The meeting was opened Septem- 
ber 28th, under the presidency of Prof. Beesley. Among 
the distinguished delegates we notice Mazzini, his private 
secretary Major Wolf and Marx, who for the first time 
appeared again on the public arena. After a provisory 
committee and a General Council had been appointed, a 
resolution was carried demanding a declaration of prin- 
ciples. Mazzini presented an Inaugural address, together 
with a Constitution, directed to all the laborers of the 
civilized society. But as the same was more suitable for 
a political conspiration - society, than an international 
socialistic union, the meeting refused the adoption of the 
address. Marx in the meantime had prepared a Constitu- 
tion, and an address, both of which were passed by a 
decided majority. Mazzini withdrew and left Marx sole 
controller of the proceedings. In 1866 the provisory 
Constitution of Marx received its sanction on the part of 
the congress held in Geneva. Very significant are the 
explanations and the Rationale given in the preamble to 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC I09 

the Constitution, viz.: " The emancipation of the work- 
ing classes must be achieved by themselves, the contest 
for the emancipation of the laboring people does not mean 
a combat for class privileges and monopolies, but for 
equal rights and duties, and for the abolishment of every 
domination of classes. The economic dependency of the 
man of labor on the monopolist of the means of labor, the 
source of life, signifies the foundation of servitude in every 
form of social misery, of the mental degradation and of 
political vassalage. For this reason the economic eman- 
cipation of the working classes remains the great end to 
which every political movement, as a subsidiary means, 
must always be subordinated. All societies and individ- 
uals, who join the International Laborers Association 
acknowledge the principles of truth, justice and morality, 
as the rule for their conduct towards each other, and all 
men, without regard to color, belief, or nationality; no 
duties without rights, no rights without duties." 

Now, it is not my purpose to give you a detailed sur- 
vey of all the proceedings of the different meetings held 
by the Internationale, as long as it stood united, or of the 
sectional congresses held since its split in 1872. Such 
a review would not be very edifying and agreeable. But 
allow me to remark in general that the creation, and the 
continuation of the Internationale has been of an im- 
mense importance for the spreading of socialistic tenden- 



IIO SOCIAL QUESTION. 

cies. Since that time Socialism has recorded advances 
that are surprising and alarming at the same time. 

Of course, the different congresses were held princi- 
pally for the very purpose of giving to the socialistic 
movement an international world-wide basis. Then the 
leaders of the different countries came together in order 
to compare notes, to discuss principles, aims and ends, 
to harmonize local and national differences of opinions. 
Thus, for example, during the second Congress held in 
Geneva in 1866, the question was raised whether the 
"mental proletariate" was to be counted among the 
laborers proper. Had it not been for the German and 
English delegates, the intellectual originator of the Inter- 
nationale himself, would have been counted out. Thus, 
very often, personal, egotistic contrarieties and an un- 
pleasant mixture of economic and political radicalism 
sprung up, and petty rivalries prevented an harmonious 
working together, especially since the anarchistic element 
has succeeded in getting under its control to a large ex- 
tent the socialistic current. Since that time, personal 
invectives, harsh denunciations are the order of the day 
among the leaders of the fiendish movement. But in spite 
of all that it must be admitted, that the laborers saw in this 
association a central point, which gave to their intentions 
and efforts the necessary back-bone. One result the 
Internationale has gained already; it has succeeded in 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. Ill 

throwing class-hatred, in all countries, as a fire-brand 
into the working- classes, that has set society ablaze. 
Besides, whatever may be the local, national or personal 
dissensions, there is an infernal unity of purpose apparent 
among the different socialistic sections. Very signifi- 
cantly this fundamental harmony is expressed by one of 
the delegates to the congress in 1873, after a futile at- 
tempt had been made to heal the division called forth the 
year before: "We regret this rupture, as both parties are 
united in the opinion that labor has to become the reason 
for a division of society. Strictly taken, only the ways 
are different, the purposes are one and the same. Our 
opponents may not triumph on account of this split; 
wherever it is necessary to confront the ruling class and 
to defend the right of labor, all socialists are united no 
matter in which direction they turn." Sufficient proof of 
this we find in the indubitable fact, that of late the different 
branches of the original Internationale and the various 
.socialistic sections observe a more methodic advance. 
They have all stepped out of the stadium of considering 
principles, into that of actual aggression; and in this 
they exhibit a wonderful unanimity. Allow me to call 
your attention to a few facts. 

First of all, notice the abundant means that are col- 
lected for party purposes in all countries, and directed 
.hither and thither in order to aid in the advancement of 



112 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

the cause. Thus, local strikes, or associates, who, in the 
course of their agitation may have come in contact with 
the prunitive and repressive power of the state are amply- 
assisted; or by means of such aid, the election of one of 
their number into the Reichstag, Parliament, etc., is ob- 
tained. Besides, not only inciting international Manifests 
are issued from Geneva, Paris, London or New York, 
but numerous revolutionary Apostles also are sent out in 
all directions, in order to propagate the cause, to arouse 
the conciousness of solidarity among the working classes, 
and, if necessary, to urge them to aggressive action. 
This secret, disquieting, international activity of Social- 
ism, has been of late established, and proved, beyond a 
shadow of doubt, on the occasions of attempted assassina- 
tions of Princes, or other displeasing officials, of con- 
spiracies or revolutionary excesses committed here and 
there. In this connection it is also worthy of notice, that 
the celebration of memorial datas of revolutionary events, 
or of prominent socialistic leaders and agitators , as those 
of Lasalle, Marx, Mazzini; or of the dates of socialistic 
conspiracies, assassinations, etc., is systematically em- 
ployed, in order to keep awake the destructive passions of 
the masses, and to hold them in readiness for bloody 
action, when time demands it. Thus for example, the 
1 8th of March, as the day of the first insurrection of So- 
cialism, is celebrated by the followers of the party of alL 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. II3 

countries. Other events have the prospect of being hon- 
ored with a like cosmopolitan distinction. By degrees a 
socialistic festive cyclus of memorable blood-thirsty social- 
istic persons and events will be formed. 

THE AIM AND END OF SOCIALISM. 

Now, this brief historical review of the development of 
Socialism compels me , finally, to state in a concise form 
the actual aim and end of this present movement. 

In doing so I feel constrained to restrict myself to the 
utterances of Socialism proper, as presented to you in the 
foregoing investigation, and to pass by the local and in- 
dividual intentions and tendencies of such, as might be 
called half-breeds of Socialism. When, for example, 
Henry George, Alfred Russel Wallace and H. M. Hynd- 
man insist upon nationalizing ground and soil, but admit 
all the rights which private capital as a means of produc- 
tion enjoys under the present economic regime, then they 
may be considered as a socialistic reform party, but never 
as full-blooded Socialists. Of course it is not our concern, 
through which different forms of migration, they, especi- 
ally the first named, may pass before they get entirely 
settled in their views. This merely en passant. Social- 
ism must be judged by itself and from its own expressions. 

Now from the foregoing exhibit of its tenets and doc- 
trines, you must have observed that it is an utterly un- 
founded, though wide-spread charge, Socialism intended 



114 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

an equal communistic division of property. Just the 
opposite is the fact, as it strives to do away with the indi- 
vidualistic cutting up and maintaining of the means of 
production. All socialistic parties, however they may 
differ on some points, unitedly object to all private prop- 
erty and capital, and to every form of laborless income, 
be it in the shape of land-rent, capital-profit or interest or 
plus-value. They consider these economic forms and 
rights of productions, though protected by law, as a gross 
injustice to labor, the only producer of value; hence they 
demand the transmutation of private into common or col- 
lective property. That is, the means of production are 
to be taken out of the hands of the individual and placed 
into the possession of the commonwealth. 

There is some difference of opinion among the various 
socialistic sections, as to the proper interpretation of the 
fundamental principle, that labor is entitled to the full 
benefit of its product. As far as this asserted right in- 
cludes the negation of all laborless income, they are of 
one mind, but they vary as to its positive function The 
one side claims for the workman his full portion of the 
value which he added to the net collective value of the 
goods produced. This right being established, there 
would be no further possibility for working capital to ap- 
propriate to itself in advance a part of the net gain. The 
other, more conservative side maintains, that the distri- 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. 115 

fcution of the proceeds should be made " according to the 
reasonable wants of the individual." In other words, 
they postulate merely the right to existence, while the 
former insists upon the right to a full recompense for 
labor rendered. Within the limits of these two asserted 
rights Socialism moves at present. 

Another point of difference relates to the question, 
with whom the title to the collective property in working 
capital should be vested in the aspired state of the future. 
That is, it is a matter of discussion yet among the Social- 
ists, " Whether associations of workingmen should be en- 
trusted with the collective property in the means required 
for their respective production, and should be entitled to 
a common use thereof; or whether that title should be 
lield by the community, the state or, as the congress of 
Marseilles wanted it, by the entire human race. Or, is 
there, perhaps, a combination of these different stand- 
points to take place, so that, for example, the state, the 
Dody politic, would own the productive means, as land 
and capital, but would allow to the individual or the asso- 
ciation, the use and management of the same. On all 
these points recent socialistic publications and resolutions 
of socialistic congresses give but indefinite, sometimes 
contradicting answers." (Menger, p. 104 ff.) 

Socialists, therefore, appear perfectly harmonious in 
their exertion to overturn the existing social order, and 



Il6 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

the economic traditionary rights, while their opinions run 
apart as soon as the fundamental principles and ideas of 
right, which shall form the foundation of the socialistic 
state come into consideration. This however, is a fact 
that explains itself, as common and universal experience 
has shown long ago, that for the purpose of agitation, 
persistent criticising of existing conditions is the most 
ready and efficient weapon to concentrate the masses, 
while practical measures generally cause dissension. 
Thus far, of necessity, the strength of Socialism lies in 
the direction of denying, calling into question, etc. 

As for its positions, the so-called Gotha programme, 
adopted by most of the socialistic sections, expresses, per- 
haps, the same with the greatest precision of form and 
contents. As far as general postulates are concerned, its 
wording is as follows: "i. Labor is the source of all 
wealth and culture, and because, generally, useful labor 
is only possible by means of society, therefore to society, 
that is, to all its members, belongs the entire product of 
labor, together with the duty to work, common to all, and 
with equal rights. In the society of the present day, 
however, the means of production are the monopolies of 
capitalists. The dependence of the working classes, in 
consequence of such monopolies, is the cause of misery 
and servitude in various forms. Hence the emancipa- 
tion of labor demands the conversion of the means of 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. II7 

labor into a common good of society, and a fellow 
or associate regulating of the entire work, together witlt 
an appropriation of the result of labor, beneficial to alL 
and with a just distribution of the same. 

"2. Based on these principles, the socialistic labor party;, 
purposes a free state, a socialistic society, the crushing 
of the iron law of wages, the abolishment of fleecing in. 
any form or shape, and the removal of all social and polit- 
ical inequalities." . . . "Religion is to be declared 
a private matter. ' ' 

You will perceive from this that the demands and aspi- 
rations of the Socialists are of an economic, a political and 
a religious nature. The fundamental postulate, however, 
is an economic one; because, as Marx asserts, the totality 
of the productive conditions or the economic structure of 
society forms the real basis, on which rises a juridical 
and political superstructure. The method of production 
of material life, conditions the social, political and intel- 
lectual process of life in general. That is, in other words ? 
according to socialistic conceptions, the political, relig- 
ious and social life of any nation, depends on its method 
of production, and its economic standard of life. " When, 
the economic, fundamental conditions of society are revo- 
lutionized, then also the juridical, civil, moral and aesthet- 
ic, etc., superstructure will change; respectively, break 
down," thus writes the editor of the " Neue Gesellschaft.*" 



Il8 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

Now, in as much as Socialism intends a total change of 
economic order, laws and regulations, it will be seen at 
once, that the civil and political alterations will and must 
be just as radical and total. For, when the individualis- 
tic method of production, and free competition is to be 
done away with, then the state or the community must 
organize labor. But whereas the internationalizing of 
this regulation of labor on the part of the body politic, 
is the primary condition for the realization of the social- 
istic society, the projected state of the future cannot as- 
sume the form of a monarchy, or of a republic, in the 
accepted sense of the word ; neither can it be national, 
it has to be either socialistic-international, or nothing at 
all. 

Of the same thoroughness will be the changes in the 
sphere of religion and the Church. It is true the above 
programme declares religion a private matter, and thus 
gives to itself the appearance as if, from principle, no ob' 
jection was to be made to the practice of religion. But in- 
asmuch as the entire economic system of Socialism is 
rooted in the purest Naturalism, and seeks the grossest 
Materialism, it evidently follows from that alone, that it 
is, and must be in its inmost nature, the negation of all 
religion and religious manifestations. If Socialism does 
not mean to put itself in opposition to itself , it cannot 
allow even a forbearing of religion. Thanks to God that in 



ITS DEVELOPMENT, ETC. II9 

thks respect socialistic literature and journalism has not 
for a moment left us in doubt, as will be seen in our sub- 
sequent lecture. Taking all together, the aim and end of 
Socialism is not, a gradual reform of existing evils, or the 
contemplation of improvements in the economic, political 
and religious conditions. Socialism simply means a total, 
complete overthrow of all present order and regulation 
of society. — Revolution, therefore, is the characteristic 
signature of the present socialistic movement. From 
this standpoint we shall subject it to a candid criticism 
in our next lecture. 



LEOTO^E IY. 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 



In the last lecture, Socialism presented itself to us 
as an entirely new conception of the world and the things 
in it. While it adopts the principles and results of the 
liberal national economy previously considered, it draws 
entirely different conclusions from the identical premises. 
Based on the very same egotism which controls the sys- 
tem of free competition, it yet points out to it a completely 
reverted direction. 

Socialism, you will have observed, does not mean to 
be a natural improved outgrowth from existing circum- 
stances, but a new plant never known before. It appeared 
to us as "Atheism in religion, as Democratic-Republican- 
ism in politics, as Collectivism in National Economy, 
and, we may add, as unbounded optimism in Ethics, as 
an effort to loosen the family and marriage tie in the 
home," etc. (Schaffle.) In short, Socialism is to be con- 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 121 

sidered as a revolutionizing system which intends to recast 
society in all its relations. 

Now in criticising this stupendous scheme, let me re- 
mark at the very outset, that we have to guard against two 
very common mistakes made up to our time with refer- 
ence to the character and the purpose of Socialism. 
~Very often intentions and acts are charged to it that are 
in no wise due to it; or people fail to look at its various 
aspects as upon inseparable combined features of its very 
essence. Thus, for example, the opinion is prevalent 
among common and uncommon people, that the aim and 
•end of Socialism was merely an equal dividing up of all 
existing wealth and the means of production. The oppo- 
site has been demonstrated in the previous lecture. In 
like manner the daily press and the public in general, is 
•ever ready to charge every disturbance and tumult caused 
by the laboring classes to socialistic agitation. 

It is true, that the professed and paid socialistic instiga- 
tors are only too eager to get a hand into every muddle 
that promises a gain for their ranks. But at the same 
time, the fact is not to be overlooked, that as long as the 
different economic strata of society have been formed, a 
suppressed resentment lias ever existed and at times 
taken vent in open outbreaks. 

On the other hand an equally serious mistake is made 
when Socialism is merely considered in its economic and 



122 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

political aspects. Its religious phase cannot be separated 
from the former, as they are in fact, but the logical 
results of its religious position. 

In the following it will be my endeavor, sine ira et 
studio^ to review Socialism in the light of its own history 
and avowed principles, as well as in that of the Word of 
Light. The enemy of Christianity is entitled to the same 
candor and impartiality which its friend and supporter 
receives. 

It has been well said that each error has, as a rule, a 
grain of truth in it, which renders it all the more fascinat- 
ing and dangerous. The same is true in regard to Social- 
ism which, it must be acknowledged, has its favorable 
sides. To ignore the same would be indeed a great folly. 
Thus, for example, even the most decided opponent of 
Socialism must admit that its founders and defenders, 
more than anybody else, have exposed and brought to 
the notice of society the disastrous consequences of the 
system of free competition. The illustrations and verifi- 
cations furnished in this respect by Marx, Engels, Lasalle 
and others have never been refuted. Even in such in- 
stances where they have exaggerated or passed one-sided 
judgment upon existing conditions, their incriminating^ 
charges against the social and economic circumstances 
are not altogether void of every foundation. Besides, 
Socialism has rendered great service to society by tracing- 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 12$ 

the existing economic differences to their proper source, 
furnishing incontrovertible evidence that the material, 
condition of the individual is for the greatest part condi- 
tioned by the unavoidable consequences of the system of 
free competition, especially by those of the current pri- 
vate right. Very pertinently says Lasalle in this respect; 
"The ethical idea of the Burgeoisie is this, that exclu- 
sively nothing else but the setting to work of his own 
powers was to be guaranteed to the individual. If all the 
people were equally strong, equally educated, equally 
rich, this idea could be considered as a sufficient and 
moral one. But as we are not and cannot be, this 
thought is not sufficient and must of necessity in its con- 
sequences lead to grave immorality; for it causes the 
stronger, better educated and richer to skin and pocket 
the weaker." Ratzinger, p. 394, 3. 

Furthermore, it must meet the approval of every right- 
thinking mind, when Socialism protests against the concep- 
tion of the existing capitalistic order of things, as of un- 
alterable laws of nature; and insists that the rights deduced 
from them by the liberal system, are by no means valid 
for all time to come. Lasalle has indeed secured to him- 
self a lasting place in juridical philosophy, by showing 
the fallacy of the reasoning on the part of the defenders 
of the capitalistic system; and by proving convincingly 
that the acquired rights are merely historical categories, 



124 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

which, in the course of time, "by the public spirit of 
progressive development," may be modified or even 
abolished entirely. 

It is also a great advance, and a step in the right direc- 
tion, when Socialism advocates the necessity of bringing 
the laborers into a closer union with capital, the laboring 
force with the productive means. It is unquestionably 
the greatest curse under which society at present, especi- 
ally the working classes, are suffering, that capitalism has 
succeeded in completely separating these indispensable 
factors of industry from each other. 

Socialism insists upon the reuniting of the two, and 
every unbiased mind must consider this demand as a just 
one, though we may strongly condemn the measures pro- 
posed to bring about such a change. Of equal import- 
ance is the fact that Socialism asserts the principle of sol- 
idarity of social interests against the abstract individual- 
ism of the school of Smith and Ricardo. According to 
the latter the excellency of any economic system consists 
in a constantly increasing production, while Socialism 
more correctly lays the greatest stress on the just and 
equal distribution of the net proceeds of labor. 

Lastly it will admit of no doubt, that the Socialistic 
conception of the functions of the state as of a cultural 
institution bound to advance also the ethical, economic 
and social moments of the life of its subjects, is by far 



A CRITIQUE ON SOCIALISM. 1 25 

preferable to that of the physiocrats according to whom, 
in the language of Lasalle, "The purpose of the State is 
exclusively to protect the personal liberty and property of 
the individual." 

As for the demands which Socialism puts to the present 
Society, it must be confessed that most of them are not 
only not objectionable, but, in full harmony with the 
principles of justice and equity. Thus when, without a 
single exception, all the socialistic sections insist upon 
the abolishment of children's work in factories, and de- 
mand a restriction and proper control of the employment 
of married women in the manufacturing places, none but 
selfish and heartless capitalists can object to such a re- 
quest in general. There may be individual cases, and 
local circumstances, that may render the employment of 
women and children" in industry for a time unavoidable; 
but not only the publications of Socialists, but also those 
of philanthropists, economists and official persons have 
established the fact long ago, that a transfer of these 
weaker elements of Society out of their proper sphere into 
the turmoil of industry, works disastrously on the har- 
monious development of these individuals as well as on 
society in general. 

To mention a second demand of Socialism: the abolish- 
ment of all Sunday work, is it not to the discredit of 
so-called Christian employers and their religious profes- 



126 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

sion, that they had, and still have to be reminded by the 
enemies of the Word of God, that there is such a thing 
as the Fourth Commandment! Who did not feel the 
piercing sting of the accusation, couched in the language 
of an appeal, made by a socialistic Section, — the Baker's 
Union No. i — to the clergy of New York only a few weeks, 
ago, when it gives utterance to the following words: 
"We are not only compelled to work long hours every 
day, but a great number of our comrades are compelled 
to work even on Sunday, the natural day of rest and re- 
creation. This, we believe, should not be; but all attempts 
on our part to have Sunday work abolished were of no 
avail. We therefore appeal to the clergy of this city for 
assistance. We beseech you, Reverend Gentlemen, to do 
all in your power to have this nuisance abolished within 
your respective parishes; and, as we hold that your duty 
as clergymen and humanitarians commands you to see 
that the Sabbath Day is not desecrated by toil, we feel 
satisfied that our appeal to you will not have been made 
in vain." 

Thus, it will be seen that there is even more than a. 
mere grain of truth in the system under consideration. 
Besides, it is admitted on all sides, that Socialism indi- 
rectly has produced very salutary effects upon the public 
mind, as well as upon social science. The constantly 
multiplying socialistic issues, and the indomitable agita- 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 127 

tion of the leaders, have called the attention of high and 
low, of the church as well as of the state; in short, of 
everybody concerned about the welfare of others, to the 
social question in its various relations and issues. As a 
beneficial result of this general interest taken in the 
matter, there must be mentioned, on the one side, the fact 
that sociology of late has experienced a wholesome 
change. The so-called realistic-positive school repre- 
sented by men like Wagner, Schame, Lange, Ihring, 
Schonberg, Held and others, has reduced the socialistic 
charges against capitalism to their proper limits; put 
the claims and the boasts of Socialism in their due light, 
and is putting forth unceasing efforts to introduce into 
economics sound and Christian principles. On the other 
hand, the persistent tenacious onslaught of Socialism 
against the present order of Society, has aroused the 
statesmen and governments of all civilized nations to a 
legislative and executive activity in the sphere of social 
reforms never before witnessed to such a degree. In 
spite of the opposition on the part of Liberalism and 
Capitalism inside and outside the Halls of Legislation and 
governmental chambers, social and economic measures 
have been initiated, and are still in progress of introduc- 
tion, that have not only proved a blessing to the trodden- 
down classes, but have done more to counteract social- 
istic agitation than all exceptionable repressive laws and 



128 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

acts put together. The policy of Bismarck and his 
supporters, for example, has of late been so thoroughly 
social with reference to the alleviation of the economic 
evils, that it has been stigmatized by its opponents as 
State Socialism. 

The church also is awakening to its duty, and begins 
to take an active part in the discussions of the needs and 
wants of the laboring classes, and of the proper means to 
remove the glaring evils in society. 

Now, all this and perhaps still more, may safely be said 
in favor of Socialism without in the least coming in con- 
flict with truth and reality. But it will be seen at once 
that its merit thus far, exists merely in negation and 
criticism, which indeed may be of great value in its pro- 
per place; but, as Socialism proposes an entire recon- 
struction of the present order of things, it must be able 
to convince us of its excellency and preferableness. But 
in this respect, Socialism not only fails completely, but 
suggests social and economic measures, which, when 
carried into effect, would prove a disaster to mankind, 
religiously and socially considered. Let me substantiate 
this assertion by a few considerations: 

Socialism when compared with Liberalism in the ruling 
system of economy, seems to be the exact counterpart of 
the latter, and yet a closer examination of it, reveals the 
startling fact that Socialism, as well as the system of 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 1 29 

Smith, Ricardo, etc., spring from one common source, 
namely, from Materialism, and Atheism. Some well-dis- 
posed and even Christian people have expressed the 
opinion "That the Socialist; purely out of expediency, 
turned to Atheism, and because the Materialistic drift of 
our time made it necessary for him. But that the sys- 
tem itself did not necessitate it." (Todt.) Socialists 
themselves, however, protest against such an interpretation 
of their religious position. Marx, for example, writes in 
" Den deutch franzoesischen Jahrbuechern," p. 73, the fol- 
lowing: " The root for man is man himself. The evident 
proof for the Radicalism of the German theory, conse- 
quently also for its practical energy is its proceeding from 
the decided, positive abolishment of religion. A criti- 
cism of religion ends with the doctrine that man is the 
highest being for man; consequently, with the categorical 
imperative to overthrow all conditions in which man is a 
degraded, enslaved, forsaken and detested being; which 
circumstances cannot be described any better than by the 
exclamation of a Frenchman, when a dog-tax was pro- 
jected, ' Poor dogs, they are going to treat you like 
men. " Another one writes: " It must be publicly 
stated that only the Materialistic, perhaps better, the 
Monistic view of the world, as it is confirmed more 
and more by modern science, coincides with the prin- 
ciples of Socialism, and gives to it that broad basis on 



I30 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

which they can rear themselves as a complete super- 
structure." 

Now out of this Atheistic conception of things very nat- 
urally flows the Materialistic tendency which characterizes 
the Socialistic system. As man in Socialistic theology is 
the highest being for himself, we can well understand the 
fact that in the economic system of this school, the individ- 
ual is made the starting point, as well as the end, of all 
its propositions and movements. While Socialism seem- 
ingly opposes with energy and bitterness the individual- 
ism in capitalism, it endeavors to establish and invest 
individualism with supreme power; for in Socialism the 
ideal state of the future, or society in general, is merely 
intended and projected in order to use it as a means for 
the realization of the interests and desires of the individ- 
ual. Even the looseness of thought expressed with refer- 
ence to the sanctity and integrity of family ties and rela- 
tions, finds its ready explanation in the individualistic 
liberalism of Socialism. 

We do not wonder, therefore, in the least, that Marx 
deduced from this alleged position of man an unquestion- 
able right to subvert all orders of Society which seem to 
prevent the individual from enjoying his eminent, social 
prerogatives. The religious Radicalism of Socialism, 
peremptorily demands the political, that is the absolute 
Tight, in a summary way, to supplant the existing rules 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 131 

and regulations of the commonwealth, by the Atheistic, 
Materialistic state of the future. Since Socialism pro- 
fessedly is done with the "Idea of God," it cannot but 
attempt to eradicate all social and economic arrangements 
which claim to have been developed by Divine permission, 
and from that fact deduce their relative title to existence. 

Now, it is this very religious radicalism underlying and 
giving energy to the socialistic movement, that must call 
out the most decided opposition on the part of a sound 
Christian conception of things. Even if we would for a 
moment suspend our specific Christian judgment, the in- 
dubitable fact that an atheistic, materialistic commonwealth 
never has and never will exist, must turn our hearts and 
minds against the proposed irreligious, socialistic order of 
society. 

Besides, a system that knows and seeks but material 
interests, puts itself in direct opposition to the eter- 
nal purpose of God with man, and also to the vital 
interests of society itself. For man very far from being 
the object of himself is rather created to God, and when- 
ever he attemps to subvert this, his Divine ordination, he 
thereby prepares for himself, and all his undertakings 
the way to certain destruction. Socialism may for a time 
tyrannize humanity, and I do not know whether it will not 
be that form of political, social and economic rule that is 
to precede the coming of the Son of Man in glory. (Read 



I32 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

for example II. Thess. 2, and Rev. 17-19.) But just as 
sure as it is of necessity anti-christian in its spirit and 
tendency, it stands condemned by the Word of Truth, as 
well as by history and human experience. An examina- 
tion of its proposed economical superstructure will lead 
us to an equally rejecting judgment. 

And here allow me to say in general, that Socialism 
makes a serious mistake in- setting aside entirely the duty 
of connecting its reformatory efforts, with what has de- 
veloped itself in the course of history, and exists at pres- 
ent in the form of acquired rights. Socialism, as we 
noticed in our previous lecture, does not believe in a 
reformation of the existing economic evils. On the con- 
trary it makes every effort to increase the same to an 
unbearable degree, in order then to obtain the necessary 
power for that well-planned revolution, that is to over- 
throw the present order of things. There are, indeed, 
such in the ranks of Socialists, who disown any and every 
anarchistic plotting on their part, especially since the 
recent, well remembered, anarchistic cruelties in Belgium, 
Chicago, etc. But official, as well as unofficial issues, 
even of these moderate socialists, confirm the opinion that 
for the present, only prudential reasons dictate such a 
moderation. They know but too well that every unsuc- 
cessful, untimely brawl must injure their cause. Besides, 
the repressive and punitive power of the State is, as yet, 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 13$ 

too energetic, that they should imprudently expose them- 
selves to its iron grasp and hold. Otherwise, there is no 
doubt that Socialists, as well as Anarchists, heartily sub- 
scribe to that part of the manifest which the Wydener Con- 
gress issued in August, 1880: "The crushing majority 
of German Social-Democrats, never gave itself over to the 
illusion that they would be able to carry their principle 
into effect in a peaceful manner, in the purely legal way. 
That is, that the privileged classes, voluntarily and without 
coercion would give up their advantageous position. But 
that we ever should abandon the carrying out of our 
principles in case the ruling classes should cut off every 
" legal " way, no German Socialist ever thought of such a 
thing; and it has been understood from the beginning, that 
in this case, which according to historical experience must 
be anticipated, every means must be right and justifiable. 
— If matters do not bend from above they must break up- 
ward from below." That is certainly plain language. 

But this very revolutionary tendency of socialism calls 
forth the severest criticism. Aside from the fact that this 
refractory spirit is the very opposite of the spirit breath- 
ing through the sacred pages, it must be maintained, that 
the social and economical circumstances, though they be 
extremely sad, are by no means beyond the reach of ameli- 
oration. On the contrary during the last two decades, in 
all social, civil and economic spheres, there is noticed a;i 



134 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

unmistakable activity and energy to bring about a more 
satisfactory, peaceful state of affairs, and it can not be 
denied that on the whole these efforts have to a great ex- 
tent been crowned with a lasting success. The necessity 
of drawing the boundaries of individualistic capitalism 
closer, is freely acknowledged; and thousands of well- 
meaning minds, are earnestly at work to secure a more 
equal distribution of the national wealth. Now while 
these remedial measures are proposed and introduced, it 
is certainly criminal conduct on the part of the avowed 
Socialist, to attempt to check this progress merely for the 
sake of being better enabled to obtrude a preposterous 
scheme upon mankind. 

Of the same character is the internationalizing of things 
and people as advocated by Socialism. For nations as 
well as nationalities are Divinely ordered, ruled and 
governed organisms which, in the great world-drama and 
especially for the realization of the Kingdom of God have 
to perform a Divinely-ordained part. It is true according 
to distinct promises of the Word of Life, and the general 
expectation of the Church of the Redeemer, based on 
those promises, the nations of the earth shall be trans- 
formed into a higher unit. But that unit is certainly not 
to be looked for in the proposed compulsory, economical 
leveling, that Socialism dreams of, but in the consumma- 
tion of the kingdom of the Son of Man. 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. T35 

Socialism is equally perverse in simply rejecting the 
individualistic principle of the school of Smith-Ricardo, 
instead of modifying it While its criticism of the same 
stands proof in general, it seriously errs in demanding its 
entire suppression. Since private production in its abso- 
luteness has created so many evils, Socialism feels 
warranted in attempting to supplant it by collective or 
common production. But here it entirely overlooks the 
significant fact that both of these factors in economy have 
co-existed together by common consent, as well as by law; 
and that the economic private interest has constantly been 
of the greatest importance to collective or common in- 
terest. Society, therefore, is not shut up to the alternative 
whether a private or Socialistic method of production is to 
be introduced. There is still the other question to be 
considered: How economical individualism can be regu- 
lated so as to insure alongside, and in union with common 
production, the greatest possible and just distribution of 
the national income, among the constituent parts of any 
commonwealth. Unfortunately this question is never 
asked by Socialism. 

Passing over to the essential feature of Socialism, 
you will remember that its principal demand is the 
abolishing of private property as a means of produc- 
tion, and its conversation into collective or common 
property. In support of this position two reasons are ad- 



136 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

vanced : 1 . It is asserted that private property, as capital, 
is the source of all social and economic misery; hence 
the necessity of doing away with it. 2. Society-labor is 
the only producer of value; hence private capital is ac- 
tually only "wages," taken away by it from the wage- 
earner. Consequently private capital is to be abro- 
gated, and the proceeds of labor must be owned and 
possessed entirely by Society, — that is the laborers. 

Now, as to the first reason our review of the workings 
of the system of free competition has convinced us, that 
the absolute use and employment of private capital, as 
practiced and sanctioned by that system, has many mis- 
deeds to account for. We have also admitted, that most 
of the charges of Socialism against individualistic 
capitalism are only too well founded. But thus far, 
Socialism has failed to prove the utter impossibility 
to remedy these evils. But as long as it is not able 
to do so, its demand to abolish private capital on 
that ground is, to say the least, unjust. There is cer- 
tainly nothing in the nature of private capital itself, nor 
in the expression of God's Word on its relation to man 
and heavenly things, nor in its historic development as a 
potent factor in economy, nor in the established right and 
law of Society, nor in sound and equitable social princi- 
ples that would and could stamp the use and employment 
of productive capital, an intolerable wrong, peremptorily 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. I37 

to be removed. On the contrary private capital is 
recognized in the Word of God, sanctioned by common, 
universal consent and usage from time memorial, and pro- 
tected by right and law of all civilized nations. As for 
its evil workings, it partakes of the general corruption and 
imperfection of all earthly things and relations, for which, 
however, an efficient remedy has been provided. Alas, 
the irreligious Radicalism of Socialism prevents it from 
adopting and applying that Divinely appointed remedy. 
Equally baseless is its second reason for the up-rooting 
of a long established, economic institute. For the asser- 
tion that capital was nothing but the curdled wages un- 
justly taken from the laborer, is too absolutely and ab- 
stractly made. Even when we admit, as we must, that 
under the present economic order and rights of society, 
capital will always obtain the advantage over labor, we 
are very far from drawing the same conclusion from this 
fact that Socialism chooses to draw from it. For even 
under the rule and reign of the present system, the possi- 
bility is not excluded to fix more justly and to greater 
satisfaction, that share which capital and labor respec- 
tively may rightly claim for itself in the net income of 
production. But as long as such a possibility is extant, 
there is no just cause to abrogate private capital, together 
with the system of paying wages. It is true that it will 
be exceedingly difficult, nay absolutely impossible in 



138 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

general, as well as in every specific case, to fix exactly to 
the dollar, or cent, the claim which the one or the other 
of these two prominent factors of production may rightly 
raise; — that would be just as impossible under the reign 
of the socialistic system. Nevertheless general principles 
may be laid down and carried into effect by means of 
which the evident tendency of capitalism to take advan- 
tage of the laborer, would be restrained, and the grada- 
tion of wages might be brought into a more just relation 
to labor and its exertions. 

Of course this reply is based on the supposition that 
capital, as a distinct and indispensable factor of produc- 
tion, is as such entitled to some reward. But this is what 
Socialism denies, by maintaining that only labor is to be 
regarded as the producer of value. It expressly avers: 
"Thus Labor, the producer, is naturally also the owner 
of the total value. Collective labor contains the labor 
of the individuals, these therefore are, as producers also 
owners of the entire value. Whatever of these different 
values may be productive means or capital, becomes 
possession of society; and whatever is a means for enjoy- 
ment, is apportioned to each workman according to the 
measure of the average labor of society. ' ' 

Now, you will at once perceive the one-sidedness and 
sophistry forming the basis of this assertion. For every 
person of sound mind will rightly maintain, that besides 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 1 3 9. 

labor there are other factors in economy that create value. 
In this connection I mention merely nature and want. 
Marx indeed declares: "The same quantity of labor 
exhibits itself, the season of the year being favorable, in 
eight bushels of wheat that during an unfavorable sea- 
son four bushels represent." " Diamonds," he further 
asserts, " are seldom found in the ground, and their dis- 
covery therefore, on an average requires much labor;, 
consequently they represent in a small volume, a large 
amount of labor." But these very examples show us the 
sophistry with which this mental founder of Socialism 
tries to substantiate his theory as to the value created by 
labor alone. For, in the first place, it is simply not true 
that those four bushels required the same amount of labor 
as the eight. The time for tilling and sowing may be 
equal in both cases, but it is certainly not as far as reap- 
ing and preparing are concerned. There the four bush- 
els represent a less quantity of labor, and according to 
the Socialistic idea, they ought to bring therefore, a 
lower price per bushel in the market, having cost less 
labor. 

As for the diamonds, we meet with the same fallacy. 
For the price of these is not at all in proportion to their 
scarcity, or to the amount of labor expended on them. 
There are, as everybody is aware, very scarce minerals 
that man cares nothing about. Why then does he look 



140 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

for diamonds at all? And why does he value them at a 
price that stands in no relation to the amount of work 
caused in their discovery? Unless we are greatly mis- 
taken there are other considerations which take part 
in the fixing of the price of these specific minerals. 
It is therefore nothing but sheer sophistry that Marx is 
guilty of, when he presumes to support his favorite idea 
as to the producer of value by such and numerous other 
invalid examples. 

The entire argumentation of Socialism very strangely 
proceeds on the silent pre-supposition, that the projected 
socialistic order of things has been inaugurated already. 
Then of course, it would, in the language of the notorious 
John Most, make not the slightest difference, whether, 
" In two different farming districts, on an equally large 
area and by the employment of the same number of labor- 
ers, and the same utensils, entirely different proceeds 
should be achieved." For, Most continues, " if with 
regard to ground and soil collective property exists, then 
the question is not how much here and how much there 
has been realized, but only what the proceeds of the 
entire country are, because the laborers would participate 
in that, and not in the produce of each separate section." 
That is, in other words, Most admits indirectly, that 
besides labor there are other causes which contribute 
value to a thing; but unfortunately they cannot be admit- 



A CRITIQUE OE SOCIALISM. 141 

ted in the socialistic state of the future. Hence the cor- 
rectness of the Socialistic theory as to value depends 
entirely on the realization of the ideal, novel order of 
things: othererwise it is utterly untenable and could not 
be carried into effect under any other method of produc- 
tion. For as long, as for example, it is admitted that there 
is such a thing as a natural value, a value furnished by 
nature independent of labor or exertion, so long this 
natural value must be permitted together with labor to 
share in the proceeds of production. Take for an instance, 
the raw material, wool, which by means of labor is con- 
verted into yarn. In this raw material, the owner pos- 
sesses an article of demand, composed of value, contrib- 
uted to it, partly by nature and partly by labor. Now, 
when he hands this valuable article over to the general 
process of production, then, an object is created which 
in its new form possesses a greater value than that which 
it could command in its previous state. Now the ques- 
tion arises whether that labor which created this plus 
value is exclusively entitled to claim it as its own, or 
whether to the natural value attaching to the raw material, 
there is also due a share in the final market price of the 
produced article ? Socialism replies to the first question 
in the affirmative, to the second in the negative, while sound 
reason reverts the answer. For, even admitted, that the 
owner of the wool, by giving it over to the general process 



142 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

of manufacturing, seeks his own interest, it cannot be 
denied that by doing so he also initiates for the benefit of 
the community a series of activities, calculated to create 
new and additional values. For this philanthropic action 
he, as the owner of the raw material, or of the natural 
value thereof, is certainly entitled to a part of the net 
gain. The personal risk which the owner assumes, and his 
ordering, directing, watching co-operation, I do not even 
mention ; though both of them are incalculable elements, 
in the manufacturing process. Taking all together, we are- 
driven to the conclusion, that, of all theories advanced 
with reference to the formation of value the socialistic is. 
the most absurd and unjust. The fault lies not in the 
things themselves, but in the one-sided definition which 
socialism chooses to give to them. But we turn to 
another subject. 

Rodbertus, in a certain place, calls the book of Marx 
on capital an "invasion into human society." Of the 
fundamental socialistic demand, it may be said with 
equal pertinency, that it is an invasion into personal 
liberty, and human rights. Take as an illustration and 
proof its position in regard to private property. It sim- 
ply denies the same, and that in the face of the signifi- 
cant fact, that individual property as a means of produc- 
tion has been recognized alongside of common or society- 
property, not only among civilized, but also among un- 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 143 

civilized nations, and that as long as any commonwealth 
has been formed. The ethnological and anthropological 
works of men like Peschel, Waitz and others furnish suffi- 
cient proof to this fact. Private property therefore, is a 
universal historical category; but it is more than that: it 
lias also assumed the form of a juridical institute, that is, 
by universal custom and usage, as well as by express en- 
actments, it has been recognized, defined and circum- 
scribed or extended. But this uniform and universal for- 
mation and development of private property, is by no 
means a matter of arbitrariness, but is founded in conclu- 
sive reasons. Of course, man as a social being is entitled 
to the enjoyment of the means for his support. But 
when common universal custom, as well as the law of 
every land, conveys to him the indefeasable title to pri- 
vate productive means, then such an important grant can 
have its reason only in the fact, that society discovered 
in this social and economic right and order, the surest 
guarantee for the satisfaction of the legitimate self-inter- 
est of the individual as well as for the attainment of the 
greatest possible welfare of the commonwealth. At the 
same time, in the fixing of the individual or private right 
regard was always paid to the claims which the first occu- 
pation of derelict property, or the first cultivation of the 
same presented. Now, all this goes to show that private 
property is a legal institution, which ought not to be abro- 



144 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

gated unless individual and common interest peremptorily 
demands such abolishment. The latter Socialism indeed 
asserts; but thus far it has failed to furnish stringent 
proofs for such an averment. Even when we admit, that, 
in consequence of the reign of capitalistic individualism, 
and the deleterious influence of the Roman law, an 
absolute conception of private property has obtained 
sanction and authority, which cannot stand either before 
the forum of Christian principles nor of society interests, 
— even, when as a result of this creeping in of a wrong 
idea, oppressive social and economic evils have arisen — 
still these facts do not call for a subversion of the exist- 
ing right and order of private property. There is, as yet, 
a possibility of a modification of the abstract conception 
of property, and of a corresponding change of the econo- 
mic disparity. If therefore Socialism by means of revo- 
lution and force, attempts the overthrow of the present 
form of right and law, then it undertakes an unjustifiable 
attack on the historical development and the legal con- 
firmation of the right to private property, and thereby on 
individual rights sanctioned and guaranteed by the state. 
In addition to this, Socialism deceives its own adher- 
ents by affirming, that, by means of the transmutation of 
private into collective capital, the putrid source of egotism 
would forever be covered up, and every possibility of tak- 
ing advantage be removed. It is indeed more than folly, 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 1 45 

in the face of an almost six thousand years' experience of 
mankind to the very contrary, to expect us to believe that 
a radical change of the social and economic basis of 
society, would work a still greater change in the moral 
tendency of human nature which finds vent in egotism. 
Even though Cabet^ the French socialist, declares : ' ' When 
we are asked : ' What is your science ? ' We answer, ' Fra- 
ternity!' 'What is your theory?' 'Fraternity!' 'What is your 
doctrine?' 'Fraternity!' 'What is your system?' 'Fraternity!" 
— we are still too skeptic to expect such a wonderful result 
from a mere shifting of material potencies. For if the Word 
of Life be true, then nothing short of God's almighty 
grace is able to subdue and root out that sinful selfishness 
which causes so much strife and bitterness among men. 
Besides, thus far the internal history of Socialism itself, 
and its external unwarranted brutal attacks on existing 
rights and order, are anything but calculated to inspire us 
with implicit confidence in the benign results avowedly 
incident to the realization of its projected scheme. For 
if the tree must be judged by its fruit, society has every 
reason to pray: Lord preserve us from the vandalism of 
Socialism. 

As for the ideal state of the future, Schaffle very truly 
says: " The delusion that in the Socialistic state of dem- 
ocratic, collective production, door and gate would be 
barred against every ' fleecing ' is perfectly vain. It is 



146 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

true the private capitalist could not take any more ad- 
vantage of wage labor, for private capital would be dismant- 
led. But the laborer would be in a condition thoroughly 
to drain the co-laborer. The same would be true of the 
directing and the directed, of the lazy and the conscien- 
tious, of the bold and the timid co-producer, of the 
demagogue and his opponent. While the quantitative 
controling of the time of labor, the fixing of the normal 
achievement of work, the computation of intensive into 
extensive work was going on, things might be practiced 
that would allow the cipitalistic vampyre of Marx to 
appear as a respectable figure when compared with the 
social democratic parasites, demagogues and majority- 
drones." (Aussichtslosigkeit, p. 33.) 

Above all, there is in social life a self-interest which 
finds Divine recognition in the words, " As thyself "in 
the second great command of our Master. Of course it is 
to take its impetus, as well as its direction and limit, from 
the motive of the first and highest command — the love 
to God. By means of this self-interest in the acquiring 
and managing of private capital, personal as well as com- 
mon advantages have been achieved, which deserve the 
greatest credit. But what the result would be if by abol- 
ishing all individual interest, the limits for economic self- 
activity should be fixed indefinitely the history of all pre- 
vious communistic undertakings has sufficiently foretold. 



A CRITIQUE OE SOCIALISM. 147 

But we pass on in order to glance at the exercise of the 
right of personal liberty, as it would take shape or form 
in the state of the future. If we could trust the affirma- 
tion of the socialistic leaders, then the golden age would 
dawn upon the world in that very respect. But as long 
as logic is logical, it is as clear as sunlight, that Social- 
ism must sacrifice personal liberty, if it maintains, as it 
does, social equality. Under the present system the individ- 
ual possesses the right of migration and of emigration — and 
immigration in order to secure his economical purposes. 
IBut what would be the case in the socialistic state ? Its 
collective production would have to be managed even in 
its details by state- supervision, and that according to the 
wants of the people, ascertained and determined by offi- 
cial statistics. Each economic individual would have to 
submit willingly or unwillingly to the power and whims of 
the official need or want. Migration, or the right to look 
anywhere for a source of obtaining a livelihood, would be 
impossible. Neither could the individual enjoy the privi- 
lege of choosing under all circumstances his own profes- 
sion. It is true, even now, not everybody selects just 
that occupation or trade because he desires it above 
every other one. Very often, as is the case with miners, 
Providence has cast the lot of certain persons into a 
region that sustains itself by mining; or the son follows 
•the steps or dictates of his father. Sometimes external 



148 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

family or economic circumstances are decisive in the 
selection of a comparatively more onerous and dangerous 
calling. In other words, man is very often constrained 
by the power of external conditions. But as in the so- 
cialistic state, the consciousness of perfect social equality 
would be raised to its highest pitch, such regards for and 
submissions to determining contingencies would not hold 
out. Why should anyone choose for example mining, 
when he discovers in himself the physical and mental 
material for a merchant, or even for something higher than 
that. But onerous and detestable work must be done; 
that is, in other words, in collective production the social- 
istic state must apply force — must command. "But 
whether a population grown up under the present econo- 
mic conditions would bear such a tyranny of the state, is 
very questionable; because man submits to the power of 
circumstances, and reconciles himself to them; but the 
power of the state which has become to him the power of 
arbitrariness, he will hate." (Truempelmann). 

Of a still more delusive character is the socialistic 
promise of social, economic equality. The national econ- 
omy of the physiocrats and the school of Smith and 
Ricardo demanded the equal title to personal and econo- 
mic traffic or equal rights. Of course it did not for a 
moment think of asking also for the equality of social and 
economic conditions. Socialism, however, more conse- 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 1 49 

quent, has in all earnestness made this demand, and 
promised for the state of the future " That every political 
and social inequality would be abrogated therein." Now,, 
it will be easily understood that the lower classes hail such 
a promise with rejoicing; and are putting forth every 
energy speedily to initiate that happy time. But when 
we take the liberty to scrutinize the socialistic expecta- 
tion, we soon discover a significant uncertainty as to how 
this equality is to be taken. There is especially a de- 
cided diversity of opinion, with reference to the proper- 
standard to be fixed for the distribution of the collective 
income. The majority, as we demonstrated in our for- 
mer lecture, is of the opinion that each economic individ- 
ual ought to be remunerated according to the measure of 
normal or society labor rendered, because, they say, an 
indiscriminate indemnification of labor would blunt every 
aspiration; certainly very true. The minority, however, 
considers a richer endowment and qualification, even tha 
greater activity of the one asa" product of nature," for- 
which the individual does not deserve an extra gratifica- 
tion. That is, the minority finds itself in entire harmony 
with the atheistic, materialistic view, giving life and energy 
to the socialistic system. For, if man is but a product of 
nature, as for example the leaf on the tree, then of course 
neither the less qualified laborer, nor even the lazy-bone 
is to be blamed if he does not accomplish as much as. 



150 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

those better endowed. Why should he then suffer for 
what nature has simply failed to supply ? The minority 
undoubtedly has logic in its favor provided the premises 
are well founded. 

Thus we see, that Socialism itself is at a loss how to 
faring about the economic equality which it has made the 
very corner-stone of its system. This is perhaps the rea- 
son why the above-mentioned Gotha-programme demands 
the distribution in question, according to the " reasonable 
wants" of the individual. But, take either of these three 
proposed methods, and you will find that the one is as im- 
possible and absurd as the other. As to the first, or the 
demand that labor rendered should form the only basis 
for the distribution of the collective income, even the 
socialist ought to have sense enough to see the extreme 
difficulty to determine, what would form the standard or 
normal working-time, by which each individual labor was 
to be measured. But even when, by extensive observa- 
tions, and by means of obligatory statistics, the general 
labor bureau should succeed in fixing, to the satisfaction 
of all, the necessary average time for each work and each 
kind of work, it would still find itself utterly unable to 
define the exact portion which each individual workman, 
or class of artisans, had added to the market value of the 
goods produced. By what standard, for example, should the 
respective part which the originating, designing, calculat- 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 151 

ing, directing and combining mind has taken in the pro- 
duction of goods, be measured ? Or which master-mind 
would be able to determine precisely the relation which 
each of the numerous particles of time of the heterogene- 
ous workmen would sustain to the indivisible value which 
they jointly have created ? Certainly Socialism would have 
to settle this and many other difficulties, either by peremp- 
tory decision, or as capitalism does by mutual agreement 
of the parties interested. But where in either case would 
be the fulfillment of the promise that labor should receive 
its full value ? 

That the second method indicated is even less accept- 
able, Socialism itself has proved by its extensive opposi- 
tion to it. But if the third should be introduced, how 
quickly would the " reasonable wants," of each particle 
of the sovereign socialistic people be cultivated to such a 
degree, that the directors of the collective world produc- 
tion would be amazed and perplexed. If Socialism was not 
determined wilfully to shut its eyes against certain facts 
connected with its history, it would have been convinced 
long ago that even among its own adherents there is a 
vast difference of opinion as to what constitutes a " reason- 
able want." For everybody knows, that its most promi- 
nent leaders, form an aristocracy whose every-day wants 
and habits differ widely from those of their followers. 
Marx and Lasalle, for example, stood far above the poor 



15- SOCIAL QUESTION. 

3aboring-men; not only on account of their education, but 
also on account of their social habits of life. Their in- 
dignation against the lot of the poor working-class, pro- 
ceeds from the softly-upholstered study. Dr. Aveling 
and his Eleonore, during their recent visit to the United 
States, even at the expense of the poor and needy work- 
man, could not deny themselves the luxury of champagne 
and the frequenting of theatres and the like. Indeed it 
would be extremely amusing if it were not too criminally 
serious to see Socialism leading its own subjects by the 
nose. 

Taken altogether we are driven to the conclusion that 
Socialism completely fails in the most essential part of 
its system — the distribution of the collective income — 
to satisfy both reason and common sense. But as far as 
this failure is studied, it must be considered a crime as it 
holds out to the poor trodden-down working classes a 
promise, that never can be fulfilled. Besides it betrays a 
poor statesmanship on the part of the socialistic theorists 
and leaders, when they keep up a constant agitation for 
the overthrow of all existing economic order and forms 
of government, without clearly and minutely exhibiting 
the proposed social order, and the formation of the state 
of the future. Thus far they leave it to their opponents 
by way of reasoning and logical deductions to supply the 
deficiency. 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 1 53 

Finally allow me to remark that Socialism underrates 
the technical difficulties which the realization of its huge 
system would create. The general opinion is that the 
future would regulate everything of itself. Marx, for 
example, was a complete laisser-faire-man in this respect. 
But it requires certainly not much common sense, in 
order to see that such a world production on account of 
its immensity, would have to be systematized in its very 
minutiae. What a collosal apparatus would be necessary 
merely to supervise and control the whole. If Socialism 
did not for the purpose of its infernal agitation suppress 
all considerations of that, and other kinds, it would at 
once give up the task as one not to be accomplished. 
Even if it should succeed in bringing about the projected 
upset, woe would be to the leaders on the morning after 
the bloody night of the social revolution, if they would or 
could not speedily satisfy the thousand-fold wishes which 
they had awakened, or could not realize the hopes of the 
multitudes called forth by their continued agitation; nay, 
if they should not fulfill the phantastic expectations, 
cherished by the misled mass. Even if the ideal state of 
the future should safely pass these first cliffs, the technical 
supervision of such a huge production would offer to the 
■everlastingly critical and sovereign socialistic people so 
many sides for an attack, that tinder for new social revo- 
lutions would constantly accumulate. Of course all these 



154 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

doubts and fears have no weight with the Socialists, as 
most of them maintain with Fourier that: " A change of 
the organization of economy, would raise nature to an 
astounding and inexhaustible fruitfulness and human 
character to an unheard-of peaceableness and harmony of 
volition." But experience of thousands of years gone by, 
confirms our conviction, that the ushering in of the 
expected millennium is dependent on other than mere 
economical conditions and forces. 

Summing up the result of our criticism, we met ir> 
Socialism a system that rests on an un-Christian, irrelig- 
ious, atheistic basis and which for that very reason directs 
its destructive work against religion, as well as against the 
organized church; against the state, as well as against 
society ; against marriage, as well as against the family * 
against capital, as well as against property, and individual 
liberty. Its principles as interpreted by it are visionary,, 
and their carrying into effect impossible. 

Now, here the question arises : Why should we trouble 
ourselves at all about a scheme that is, at least in its econ- 
omic aspect, so Utopian, vague, impracticable and delu- 
sive ? Why should we not leave it to its own doom, with 
the expectation that it will of itself explode, or crumble 
into dust ? The answer to these inquiries lies in the fact 
so often overlooked, that Socialism is pre-eminently a 
religious or rather irreligious system. Were it not for its 



A CRITIQUE OF SOCIALISM. 1 5 £ 

atheistic attitude it would, I venture to say, have died 
out long ago. But atheistic materialism gives life, energy 
and nerve to it. And it is this irreligious position, that 
by the force of logical conclusion compels it to put itself 
in deadly opposition to all Divine or human, ecclesiastical 
or social and economic relations, orders, rules and arrange- 
ments which hitherto claimed to exist either by direct 
appointment of God, or by Divine permission. But it is 
also this infernal character that makes Socialism so 
extremely dangerous for all classes of society: for the 
church, because it has to encounter on every side the 
blasting influence of unbelief; for the state and society, 
because their very foundations are called into question, 
and for the poor laboring classes, because they are crim- 
inally deceived, and used as the available instruments to 
keep mankind in terror. Now this two-fold character of 
Socialism must also decide the position, which the church, 
the state and society in general has to take respectively, 
with reference to this alarming movement. But of that 
we will have something more to say in our next lecture. 



KECTUHE Y. 



THE SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 



That there is such a thing as a social question agitating 
mankind at present, no one will deny. Not many years 
ago we in this country were not at all disturbed by it, 
while now it has spread through the length and breadth 
of the land, and assumed such a formidable character as 
to create uneasiness. And that under the exceptionable 
blessing of civil and religious liberty, and an unsurpassed 
national wealth. Certainly evidence enough that the 
present social commotion is of a general, deeply-seated 
and desperate nature. Neither is there a shadow of 
doubt that "all the revolutionary, destructive elements 
of Science, of Religion and of Politics are summoned by 
the social question to take active part in a decisive bat- 
tle. ' ' (Lange.) Hence the great necessity and importance 
to approach the solution of this intricate problem with all 
energy and determination. There is at this time no 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 57 

other subject that demands a closer attention and a more 
united, persistent effort and speedy adjustment than this 
one. 

But in order to be able to remove the difficulty it is ab- 
solutely necessary first of all to uncover and to lay bare 
the very source of the evil before any attempt is made to 
apply a successful remedy. 

Now, it has been said, and we would not gainsay the 
assertion, that the economical conditions of the depend- 
ent classes are at present actually not any worse, in 
general, rather better than they were in times past. But 
it is thought that the wonderful advancement made in 
science, culture, refinement and the multiplied con- 
veniencies of life has created a different conception of the 
social standard. Hence economic conditions are con- 
sidered now as being oppressive and needing a reform 
which our forefathers found very agreeable. Demands 
are made at present on society and the body politic which 
the past would not have ventured to raise. The universal 
striving of the nations after a higher grade of culture is 
calling forth a higher degree of humanity, a keener sense 
of right, a loftier idea of national purpose, and a greater 
sensitiveness as to duty. But while this opinion presup- 
poses a discrepancy between that which is and what ought 
to be, and while it explains to us the process by which 
this disagreement has come to be felt, it leaves us utterly 



158 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

in the dark as to how the acknowledged evil originated; 
neither can it on that account, suggest any effectual 
remedy. 

Now, if our delineations of the system of Free Compe- 
tition and of Socialism were correct, then the germs of 
the present social disturbances must be looked for in the 
fertile soil of Materialism, Rationalism and Atheism. 
The ethical materialism of the seventeenth and eigh- 
teenth centuries caused: 1. That political materialism 
which founded Society, not on the everlasting rock of 
God's moral law, but on the " contrat social," on a legal 
contract — "a standpoint which forms the lowest grade 
that the State as well as science can occupy." 2. That 
economic rationalism which based the community not on 
the Divine law of love of one to the other, and the princi- 
ple of common interest, but on the exchange and labor 
contract. The exclusive bond to hold together the ato- 
mized members of the commonwealth, is in either case 
egotism. Out of this materialistic rationalism naturally 
grew. 3. That atheistic socialism, which undertakes to 
place society entirely on the foundation of unbounded 
sensuality. And can we expect anything else from it ? 
There is, indeed, logic in the language of a socialistic 
issue when it avers: "Whosoever takes away from the 
people Heaven, must give to them at least the earth. 
When in feudal times Hierarchy bent the necks of men, it 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 159 

offered to them anyhow a mild hope of another, of a 
better world. But the privileged classes of the present, 
what have they to offer to those millions by whose pining 
away, aggravated by toil and labor, they are enabled to 
enjoy the pleasures of life ? You miserable Pharisees of 
the liberal Bourgoisie that have snatched away from the 
people the consolation of pious belief, where is your 
logic ? The logic of the history of the world is severer 
than yours. We are done with Heaven. Now then, the 
people are justified in reclaiming from you the earth." 
(Kuntze, p. 95 f .) 

These facts, sad as they are, must be acknowledged, if 
we ever expect to find a remedy for the spreading disease. 
In other words, society in general, high and low, poor and 
rich, employers and employed, those governing and those 
governed, must become convinced of the fact, which his- 
tory has established again and again, that social and 
economic disturbances are invariably the result of a 
religious decline of the mass. Unless this conviction 
takes place, every effort to divert the social question of 
its alarming character will be in vain. On the other hand, 
when sin is recognized as lying at the bottom of the pres- 
ent uneasy state of affairs, then the proper remedy for a 
permanent cure of the existing evil will suggest itself. 
The Christian will at once see the necessity of introduc- 
ing into all conditions of social and economic life, the 



l6o SOCIAL QUESTION. 

healing powers from on high. And as the various preserv- 
ing elements of society, of the state, the community and 
the church by the revolutionary attitude of the present 
movement are threatened alike with destruction of their 
vital parts, and are materially checked in the discharge of 
their respective duties, it rests upon them separately and 
conjointly to put forth every effort, and to task all en- 
ergies and available means to stay, if possible, the social 
inundation. 

In what manner each of these essential factors of society 
ought to lay hands on the imperative reform, I will en- 
deavor briefly to specify. 

I. THE DUTY OF THE STATE. 

In a time in which innumerable infernal powers are at 
work to undermine the very foundations of all social, civil 
and religious orders, it is of the highest importance that 
the State as such should keep in mind its historic origin 
that is, its Christian character. For it admits of no doubt 
that this civil organism in its present form, be that mon- 
archical or democratic, has been developed under and by 
means of the power of the spirit of Christianity. This 
indubitable fact at once subjects each seperate govern- 
ment to a higher order and the laws thereof, and raises 
Christianity to the authority of a standard by which legis- 
lation as well as administration is to be guided. Not that 
I should maintain that it was the purpose either of Chris- 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. l6l 

tianity or of the State to furnish the body politic with a 
specifically Christian code of civil or social laws. But I 
do hold that all legal regulations and measures in their 
motives as well as in their practical issues must reflect and 
actualize the eternal thoughts and principles of Divine 
justice and mercy as they are embodied and expressed in 
the Word of life. Hence the State must allow the spirit 
of Christanity to influence its legislative and administra- 
tive actions, and must forever discard the maniac dis- 
covery and idea of the French revolution that the State 
had to be atheistic. 

Having thus obtained a firm basis, the State will at once 
perceive the necessity of purging its legal statutes from 
the leaven of that Roman perception of right which espec- 
ially since the naturalistic movement of the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries, has exercised a moulding influ- 
ence on civil and even on ecclesiastical legislation of 
Christian nations. It is true the Roman law on account 
of its complete arrangements and order, its nice juridical 
discriminations and distinctions has ever aroused the ad- 
miration of the civil world. But as it entirely ignores the 
relation of the creature to an absolute Creator, of man to 
a Supreme Lawgiver — as it is merely based on perverted 
existing human relations, for that reason it lacks all those 
elements which, according to Scripture, make up the idea 
of real, substantial right. In the eyes of the Word of 



1 62 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

God, the heathen world does not know judgement (Isa. 
xlii: i; Ps. cxxvii: 19-20). Hence the Roman conception 
of right ought in no way to define the civil, social and eco- 
nomic relations of those, who by virtue of their Christian 
birth, education and covenant-relation are to be governed 
by the higher law of their covenant God. 

In what manner the State should carry out its direct 
cultural work with special reference to the present social 
and economic needs cannot be a matter of doubt. In the 
first place it has to summon and cross-examine itself 
whether and how far by legislative measures it has facili- 
tated the one-sided formation of individualistic capitalism. 
For we are convinced that the latter would never have 
become such an oppressive power, if from the beginning 
of the present ruling system the necessary legal restric- 
tions had been issued and enforced. Legislation in the 
past has too often shown itself very accommodating to the 
demands of capitalism while it persistently has disregarded 
the just claims and complaints of the working classes. 
Thus, for example, in England " at the beginning of the 
great revolution in industry and traffic, the suffering labor- 
ers had applied to the Legislature for redress. But it 
had declared that it could not alter anything in the eternal 
laws of nature, which governed the conditions of labor. 
In consequence of that, the workmen had tried to help 
themselves by demolishing factories and machines until 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 63 

they were threatened with the penalty of death, and until 
about a dozen laborers were hung. Then followed the 
agitation for a legal restriction of the time of labor: but 
it required thirty years before sufficient provisions for the 
protection of women and children in factories could be 
obtained." (Brentano.) As a natural consequence we 
see one part of the English wage-earners turn to the doc- 
trine of John Owen while the other fell in with the social- 
istic party of the Cnartistic movement. Thus not only in 
England, but in other countries the civil powers, by acts 
of omission as well as by commission, have materially 
aided and are still furthering the formation of social ex- 
tremes. These failures must be perceived and acknowl- 
edged before they can be rectified. 

Again in our times of social commotion and anarchistic 
hankering after a thorough overthrow, the government is 
perfectly justified in making use of the repressive power 
with which it is endowed. But at the same time it would 
make a sad mistake, would it exclusively depend on that 
prerogative and right. On the contrary, now more than 
ever, the State has to show its readiness to solve the social 
question without resorting at once to extreme measures, 
or relying on its punitive, resentive power. The various 
governmental, administrative branches have themselves 
actively to enter into the mental contest waged in our 
days, and must put forth every effort to call in the different 



164 SOCIAL QUESTION, 

preserving and upbuilding elements within their boundaries, 
as church, school and family, in order to take part in the 
great work of bringing into harmonious co-operation all 
the social and economic factors of society. By doing this 
the threatening ruin, assuming constantly larger dimen- 
sions, will, and must be prevented. In this respect the 
Imperial modification of the necessity of an exceptional 
socialistic law for Germany strikes the key-note, when it 
considers the repressive means merely as " pre-conditions 
for the cure of the evil, not as the cure itself," and when 
it further says: " The active co-operation of all the pre- 
serving elements of civil society is necessary in order, by 
a reviving of religion, by enlightening and instruction, by 
fortifying the sense for right and morals as well as by fur- 
ther economic reforms, to pluck out the roots of the evil." 
Above all, the State has to perceive its duty in the 
direction of a just economic legislation. Here as yet a 
wide and fruitful field opens itself to its activity. Unfor- 
tunately, as was intimated before, legislation has yielded 
too much to the influence of the School of Smith and 
Ricardo, x and for that reason has concerned itself too 
eagerly about the advantages of producing capital while 
it neglected the interests of producing labor. But the 
national life of any people will not develop itself peace- 
fully and prosperously, unless these two indispensable 
factors of human life and happiness are made the objects 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 65", 

of legislative impartiality, so that they share proportion- 
ately in the increase. Now, former as well as present 
statistics prove beyond a doubt that everywhere national 
income has advanced, while individual gain has not kept 
equal step with the former. The entire economic progress 
of our time, however, is of such a kind that there exists 
the possibility to raise the working classes in their mater- 
ial and cultural conditions, without being in the least 
compelled to injure or deprive any of the possessing 
classes. Here then, the State has to begin its activity 
by advising ways and means that will actualize the extant 
possibility. If the ruling industrial system is unwilling; 
to co-operate in the solution of the economic problem^ 
then the State is under solemn obligation by its interven- 
tion to bring about a correction. This can be done in a 
twofold manner: i. By restricting the power of private 
capital and the contents of contracts made, if both of 
these individual privileges are becoming instruments for 
the oppression of the working classes. 

When, for example, capitalism makes use of the right of 
migration merely for the purpose of collecting wage-earn- 
ers en masse in a particular place in order to forgo the just 
demands of the laboring forces then and there extant, 
then it becomes the State, by some legislative measures to 
throw obstacles in the way of exercising that right. Or, 
when the employment of women and children in factories 



l66 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

evidently is invited only for the purpose of dispensing 
with the more costly male-hands, then the welfare of the 
family as well as that of the community demands that 
such ruinous tactics by means of more stringent factory- 
laws be made impossible, at least be reduced to the 
smallest possible number of exceptions. For the State 
on account of its position and object, is bound to inter- 
fere "Wherever interests are at stake which from their 
very nature are unable to protect themselves, or where 
those, to whom naturally the defense thereof is intrusted, 
consider it an advantage to exercise this guardianship 
either not at all, or insufficiently. But children cannot 
protect themselves and parents very often are tempted, 
for the sake of worldly gain to sacrifice their own off- 
spring, while the entire State has a lively interest in the 
bodily, mental and moral integrity of all its subjects." 
(Haspe.) Especially does this duty of interfering be- 
come imperative, " when even the working of wife and 
child is insufficient to furnish to the entire family the 
necessary food and rest, and thus not only a single indi- 
vidual is sacrificed, but that entire vital organism pines 
away and decomposes which is the foundation of the 
State." (Truempelmann.) 

It is true, at present, the social legislation of all civ- 
ilized countries manifests the willingness to rectify the 
glaring economic evils, and in consequence of that, whole- 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 67 

some improvements have been made of late. But the 
work of adjusting the labor troubles has merely begun — ■ 
there is obviously time and opportunity enough for more 
legislative activity in this very respect. 

2. In some cases the State will have to take certain 
branches of economic pursuit out of the hands of private 
management and bring the same under its own control, if 
it ever intends to break the intolerable power of the one- 
sided development of private undertakings. In some 
instances this has been done on the part of the State with 
the greatest success, as, for example, in the management 
of all postal affairs, the taking charge of the means of 
public instruction, of public highways, etc., and in some 
countries even in the assumption of telegraph and rail- 
road service. But it ought to be done also with all such 
monopolies which have become or are becoming an op- 
pression to an entire nation or a great part thereof. 
Besides,, there are such branches of industry that are 
notoriously and decidedly deleterious to human health; 
such ought never to be permitted to become the objects 
of private speculation, unless strictly guarded by legal 
regulations and oversight. 

When the Government of any country thus becomes 
itself an economic power, then it enters into competition 
with private pursuits and exercises a wholesome and 
checking influence on the same. 



l68 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

Again, as the question of wages confessedly forms the 
most essential part of the social problem, the State can- 
not pass it by, but has to make it an object of its legisla- 
tive concern. It is by no means advisable to leave this 
salient point any longer to the self-regulation of Man- 
chesterism, if that question shall not be made still more 
intricate and complicated than it has become already by 
socialistic imbroglios. The ruling system of Free com- 
petition, as we have convinced ourselves, has shown itself 
utterly incapable of creating a satisfactory relation be- 
tween capital and labor. Nay more, "our present laws 
respecting possessions do not purpose to satisfy fully all 
wants according to the measure of extant means. Our 
Codes of laws touching private rights, do not contain one 
single legal sentence that would direct to the individual 
those goods and services that are necessary for the 
maintenance of his existence." (Menger, p. 3.) The 
economic system of Smith as well as legislation, in- 
fluenced by that system, occupies in this respect the 
position which Malthus with reference to individual right 
somewhat brutally but pertinently expresses in the well- 
known words: " A man who is born into a world already 
possessed, if he cannot get subsistance from his parents 
on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not 
want his labor, has no claim of right to the smallest por- 
tion of food, and, in fact, has no business to be where he 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 69 

is. At nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover 
for him. She tells him, be gone, and will quickly execute 
her own orders." (An essay on the principle of popula- 
tion, 2nd ed. 1803, p. 531.) 

But if anything is certain, it is the fact that Socialism 
will always find a cause to revolutionize the masses, as 
long as the flagrant disproportion between capital and the 
remuneration of labor will last. As, however, according 
to all past experience, the possessing and ruling classes, 
out of their own accord will not take steps to arrange this 
economic relation more justly, the welfare of the com- 
munity demands that the State should manifest its in- 
fluence in the direction of the solution of the alarming 
problem. Self-evidently it is not a part of its function 
to fix a scale of wages for each individual branch of in- 
dustry, or to command a normal working-day for the 
different trades-. But it cannot be questioned that it is 
within the power of the Government to exercise a lasting 
and restraining influence on the tendency of capitalism to 
lower the standard of wages, if it will initiate measures as 
have been mentioned, if it will grant a sufficient salary to 
those in its own employ, and if it insists upon a thorough, 
comprehensive and enforced Enquete with reference to 
the movements of privately managed enterprises, in order 
to shape its legislative steps accordingly. Every body- 
politic that directs its exertions to the adjustment of the 



170 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

claims of a righteous distribution of the proceeds of 
labor, takes hold of the evil by its roots, and adds im- 
mensely to its final removal. 

Furthermore, it is the imperative duty of the State, 
with all available means, to put an end to the fearful 
devastation which capitalism is working " on the physical, 
mental and moral forces of the cultural foundations of 
society." Even the latest scientific researches confirm 
the former lamentable result, that individualistic capital- 
ism, in its unrestrained development, has forever been 
gnawing the vital marrow of each industrial portion of a 
community. Thus, for an example, it is universally ob- 
served, that in industrial regions the frequency of still- 
births is greater than in purely rural districts. An off- 
spring in such centers which is permitted to see the light, 
is by far more exposed to a premature death, than the 
children of other places. It is especially that rachitic 
English disease of children, which decimates the little- 
ones in industrial regions. But this evil always has its 
origin in insufficient nutriment of the generators as well 
as of the generated. Very truly, therefore, says the 
celebrated Dr. Singer, that against this evil no medical 
remedies prevail anything, but that the butcher shop will. 

With regard to the mental status in such manufacturing 
centers, the same sad observations are made. Generally 
common school education does not stand comparison witfa 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 171 

that of other places, not even with rural districts, where 
schooling has to contend with local difficulties. And as for 
the ethical and moral conditions of industrial regions, the 
unanimous testimony of recent moral-statisticians, as of 
Oettingen,Drobisch and others, is not at all in their favor. 
Now, wherever such physical, mental and moral in- 
juries are directly due to the deleterious expansion of 
the power of Capitalism, is it not the imperative duty of 
legislation, by means of sanitary, cultural and provident 
provisions to correct the evil ? Without any doubt. Many 
a State, indeed, has pursued a self-destructing policy by 
allowing capitalism, altogether too long, to draw upon 
the life-blood of its constituent parts. It is true, and we 
may thank God for it, in our days the necessity of looking 
after the physical and moral welfare of the dependent 
classes receives an attention on the part of statesmen, as 
it has never done before. But let no one for a moment 
suppose that everything in that direction was done what 
ought to be done. There is, above all, that most essen- 
tial element of the economic and civil life of a nation, the 
family, that must become more the object of legislative 
care and concern. Unfortunately past legislation has too 
often favored private capital and national wealth at the 
expense of the poverty of the working families. This 
policy the State has to discard forever. For it is the 
family that forms the firm foundation of the social and 



172 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

civil organism of the body-politic. And it is also the 
family, where the present economic evil has its vital germ. 
Hence it is of the greatest importance that this essential, 
indispensable factor of society and State should be 
strengthened, protected and rendered secure against de- 
cay. 

Finally, the State has to make every exertion to preserve 
another of its principal supports intact, namely, those 
agraric conditions, which are so essential to its develop- 
ment. They form at present for the State a sure founda- 
tion. Radical Socialism is aware of this fact only too well; 
consequently its open confession, that it was compara- 
tively easy to begin a social revolution, but impossible to 
carry it through without the co-operation of the country 
people. Hence its indefatigable efforts to instill its 
abstruse ideas into the minds of the rural population, 
and on that account its constant success in such countries 
where, as in England, Ireland and Germany, the agraric 
conditions have been very oppressive. For this reason 
the State ought energetically to further the interests of 
agriculture, especially to protect the same against any 
overbearing of industrialism and mercantilism as well as 
against the rapacity of private speculation. It is by no 
means necessary, nor would it be wise to expropriate the 
owners of the soil, or to introduce communistic pro- 
duction, nor to nationalize the land. But one thing is 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 73 

indispensably necessary : In the interest of the fer- 
tility of the soil as well as of the welfare of the indi- 
vidual and the commonwealth, land must be kept out of 
the clutches of private speculation. Immense complexes 
of ground in the hands of a few individuals have always 
proved a curse to the community. When one half of the 
province of Africa, according to Pliny Hist. Nat. xviii: 3$, 
was found in the possession of but six men, then the 
Roman Empire had approached its last stage of develop- 
ment. Old Italy was ruined by its " Latifundia," and 
England's and Ireland's scourge to day is the distortion of 
their agraric conditions. Lord Beaconsfield, a few years 
ago did not betray much of Statesmanship, when in a 
public address he gave to the English Latifundia-system 
the preference over the French parcelling system. Bad 
as the latter is, in a social and economic aspect it is by 
all means preferable to a state of things, as the agricul- 
tural conditions in the countries mentioned exhibit. But 
we pass on to the redress which is to be rendered in 

THE ECONOMIC SPHERE. 

Even the best intentions and exertions on the part of 
the State will finally prove a failure, if the human factors 
of production remain unwilling to co-operate in the solu- 
tion of the social question. The State cannot enforce a 
reform, it needs the active help of the parties immediately 
concerned and interested in such reform. But here we 



174 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

meet on the one side the possessing classes or the capital- 
ists, on the other hand the wage-earners — the employers 
and the employed. Now, both of these must resolve in a 
candid Christian spirit to settle their differences. 

As for the capitalists our historic investigation has con- 
vinced us that for the greatest part they have caused the 
social problem to assume such an alarming character. 
Hence society has a right to expect of them, not only not 
to oppose any longer such efforts that are made for the 
removal of existing economic evils, but also actively to 
devise ways and means for such a rectification. It is in 
their own interest as well as in that of society in general 
that they should make every effort to check the destructive 
forces of the day, and to initiate a peaceful and harmoni- 
ous development of all social and economic elements. 

Now, you will recollect that the mistakes of liberal 
economism previously mentioned, were due to erroneous 
conceptions. For this reason, political economy will 
have to consent to a rectification of these false, untainable 
ideas, and thus bring about a reform of its very founda- 
tion. And here first of all mention must be made of the 
fallacious opinion in regard to private capital and produc- 
tive property, as it has been exposed in our critique of 
the system of free competition. The producing classes 
have to trace these categories to their proper origin, that 
is they must come to the conviction that property in capi- 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 75 

tal and land, considered as a human institution, owes its 
existence merely to regards for social expediency. Con- 
sequently it cannot claim to be an unchangeable, irrevoc- 
able institute of right and economic development. Such 
a persuasion then will exercise a wholesome influence in 
various directions. In the first place the right to private 
capital possessions will not any longer be considered as an 
absolute one, but rather as a right granted to the individ- 
ual because the exercise thereof in that form is con- 
sidered by society as being mostly advantageous to the 
welfare of all. For this reason a right of absolute dis- 
posal is out of question. The obtaining of productive 
capital, even from a purely economic standpoint consid- 
ered, involves the obligation to apply the same also in the 
interest of the whole community. Otherwise the very 
idea of private property is annulled. Adding to this those 
responsibilities which grow out of the religious relation 
between employers and employed, then we demand of 
the capitalistic powers that they free the system of unre- 
strained competition from its rationalistic embrace and 
place it on a Christian basis. The egotistic self-interest, 
this only impelling motive of the liberal method of produc- 
tion, has to give room to that spirit which expresses itself 
in the Apostolic words of admonition: " Not looking each 
of you to his own things, but each of you also to the 
things of others." Phil, ii: 4. 



176 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

When in this manner political economy has received a 
sound moral basis, then labor, this indispensable factor in 
the creation of wealth, will receive that valuation which is 
due to it. In our treatise on the system of free competi- 
tion we considered it as a principal error of physiocratic 
individualism that it looks upon human labor merely 
as upon a mechanical activity, which in the introduc- 
tion of the division of labor is put on an equal footing 
With the technical achievement of machinery, and which 
on that account is only remunerated in so far as it is in- 
dispensable in the process of production. Manchesterism 
especially, in its extreme development has always failed 
to appreciate the fact that mere expenditure of force does 
by no means form labor, even when it is directed to a pro- 
ductive end. Human labor is rather a personal activity 
which on the one side consciously is turned toward the pur- 
poses of production, and which on the other hand allows 
itself as a serviceable achievement to be inserted into the 
systematized activity of the totality, in order not only to 
advance its own but also the common interests of society. 
That is, labor has a personal, a social, and an ethical char- 
acter, and these three moments elevate it far above every 
mechanical movement, no matter how artful or efficient 
it may be. This fact capitalists have to acknowledge, 
they must consider human labor as a moral factor in the 
process of production, whose value is not to be measured 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 177 

merely by a technical rule. It is true, the present general- 
enterprising in industry cannot desist from the accus- 
tomed division of labor, but that ought not to be allowed 
to press down the personality of the wage-earner on a level 
with machinery. The workmen of the present day are by 
far too conscious of their relative value and importance 
in the economic process, as that they should acquiesce in 
a persistent, intentional disregard of the industrial signifi- 
-cation of labor. They require, and justly so, the estab- 
lishment of a more righteous relation of capital to labor, 
or in other words, they demand of the employers a regu- 
lation of the wage question that will give labor its due 
position and honor. And there is one thing certain, if 
the social question is ever to be solved, at least if it is to 
loose its present threatening feature, then capital must 
accede to an equitable settlement of the wage trouble. 
When, for example, the technical improvements in indus- 
try render the production of goods more facile and effi- 
cient, — is there any reason why capital alone should 
claim for itself the advantage and benefit of such facility; 
and why it should leave wages on their former basis ? 
Certainly, none. Besides, it is not only a postulate of 
humanity, but of justice, also, that while the production of 
goods is constantly increasing, the working classes should 
be enabled to better their condition also, so that they 
fnd opportunity to participate in the higher gifts of cul- 



178 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

ture, education and comfort. Rodbertus, indeed, does 
not demand anything unjust or unreasonable when he 
requests " not a more proper and equal division of the 
means of production, but rather a more just distribution 
of the products or proceeds of the goods." If that would 
be granted, then also the relation of production to consump- 
tion would be brought into a better harmony. As long 
as the consumptive inability or, in other words, the pov- 
erty of the masses remains the same, even while the pro- 
duction of the goods constantly advances, stagnations in 
trade must of necessity take place and become, as they 
have done, a scourge to modern society. Thus the 
increase in national wealth does not bring any ameliora- 
tion to the greatest part of the people; on the contrary, 
causes and aggravates the economic extremes of rich and 
poor, threatens the social structure with destruction and 
undermines the foundation of civil government. 

In view of these facts the possessing classes ought no 
longer to shrink from the fulfillment of their imperative 
duty to honor adequately human labor, if they do not 
mean to endanger their own well-being as well as the 
security of society. 

In what manner and to what extent this advance in 
wages is to be made, is a matter of mutual agreement, as 
no fixed rule can be applied to each and every individual 
case. The manifoldness in the economic and local con- 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 79 

ditions of society, requires also a diversity in the ar- 
rangement and the method of compensating labor ren- 
dered. But one thing seems to be well established, 
namely, that the system of Co-partnership, or of a Tan- 
tieme, has worked to the great satisfaction of all parties 
concerned. This method, slightly altered, was in vogue 
already from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century. 
In late years it has been introduced with great success, 
not only in farming, but also in various branches of in- 
dustry. The wage-earner, besides a fixed amount of 
wages, receives also a previously announced pro-rata por- 
tion of the final net-profit of the business. Thus he actu- 
ally becomes a partner in the concern, and this con- 
sciousness generally works well on both sides. The em- 
ployer, in granting such a proportionate participation in 
the proceeds, performs a moral act which secures to him 
greater confidence on the part of his employees, and re- 
moves from him the odious stigma of an egotistic capital- 
ist. The workmen, on the other hand, find it in their 
own interest to work as much, as carefully and savingly 
as possible. For every increase of the final gain secures 
to them a larger share in the same. Besides, it has been 
found that under such an arrangement the laborers them- 
selves exercise a mutual supervision, and thus the produc- 
tive ability is materially enhanced all around. Wherever 
this system has been introduced in England, Germany and 



l8o SOCIAL QUESTION. 

our own country, the results have been advantageous for 
both parties. In spite of the additional compensation thus 
granted to the workmen, the employers have gained a 
larger profit than they had been able to realize before 
such an arrangement was made. The reason for this lies 
in the fact that they had it in their power to secure more 
trustworthy and able hands, and by means of harmonious 
feelings to keep off the damaging consequences of de- 
structive strikes, and similar conjunctures. 

Whether such an agreement could be introduced into 
every branch of industry, is a question that cannot be 
answered at once in the affirmative. But wherever it is 
made, two things are absolutely necessary for its final 
success. The owner of the business has to make the 
pro-rata division of the net-income conscientiously, so as 
to tally with his voluntary stipulation and with the figures 
on his books. The workmen, on the other hand, have 
to be very careful not to over-rate the announced net 
result, nor to underrate the working expenses, two points 
on which laborers in general are very skeptical and dis- 
trustful. In other wor-ds, the Christian spirit of honesty, 
candor and mutual confidence has to penetrate even such 
a beneficial system, if it is expected to last, and to prove 
a blessing to the economic, moral and religious welfare 
of society. 

Where, however, the system of co-partnership, for 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. l8r_ 

some reasons cannot be considered, there are, undoubt- 
edly, other ways and means by which capitalists have it 
in their power to bring about a more satisfactory relation 
between themselves and their employees. There are, for 
an illustration, according to well-authenticated reports, 
some mauufacturers who increase the wages of the men 
under their charge, as they advance in years, especially 
so from the time of their getting married, without asking 
any additional work of them. By so doing they enable 
the head of the family to support the same without being 
compelled to send wife and children out to earn a mere 
pittance. Others are endeavoring to enhance the ma- 
terial, mental and moral well-being of those depending on 
them, by founding, supervising and aiding various insti- 
tutions for the mutual insurance of the workmen, by sup- 
plying healthy and comfortable dwelling-apartments, or 
by building churches, schools, libraries and reading- 
rooms for those intrusted to their care. All these and 
similar beneficent provisions are of incalculable influence 
in the solution of the social problem. Besides, thus far 
each benevolent, philanthropic capitalist has found it to 
be in his own interest when he conducts his business on 
strictly Christian principles. He has preserved to him- 
self a good conscience and kept clear of the reproach of 
having obtained his wealth out of the sweat of the brow 
of his workmen. 



1 82 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

As long as in economy the two factors, employer and 
employed, or capitalists and wage-earners are indispen- 
sable, so long it will be of the greatest importance to 
regulate the relation between the two in a just and har- 
monious manner. And as wages or money, by general 
consent and custom, has become that instrument by which 
this relation is maintained and expressed, it is a matter of 
grave consequence to fix this economic ligature in such a 
manner, that the one part of the mutual relation is not 
encroached upon by the other. Otherwise there will be no 
concert of feelings nor of action. Hence even the self- 
interest of capitalists demands that they should determine 
the scale of wages on a sound and fair basis. It is true, 
money is and remains but a cold, lifeless metal, which only 
then will produce vital heat when it is made to flow by the 
power of the Christian motive of well-wishing and love to 
the neighbor. The employer, therefore, should rather 
offer an advance in wages than wait until a prospect of 
material loss compels him to it. General experience 
confirms the assertion that a self-prompted concession al- 
ways creates a more satisfactory relation than power and 
coercion. 

In short, the duty of the employer does not end there 
and then, when he has fulfilled his obligations as far as 
they have been imposed upon him by a juridical contract 
between him and his workmen. His relation to them is 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 83 

withal a moral one, and on that account he is bound to 
a conscientious regulation of the wage interest and to the 
furtherance of the social, mental and moral conditions of 
his laborers. It is, indeed, high time that the Cainitic 
sentiment: " Am I my brother's keeper?" should make 
room in the hearts of the capitalists to that spirit that con- 
siders also the dependent, poor wage-earner a brother. 

Passing on to the co-operation of the working-classes it 
will be seen at once that they are too an essential factor 
in the industrial process, as that their behavior in the pres- 
ent social excitement should be unimportant. On the 
contrary, to a great extent, it will depend upon them 
whether society is to be shaken to its very foundation, or 
not. The following suggestions are intended as hints in 
what direction the laborer has to conceive his obligations. 

At the present time, when social excitement waxes hot, 
and agitation becomes impassionate, the wage-earners 
cannot be admonished too impressively to preserve cool 
blood, to advance with sobriety and prudence and above 
all to resist every attempt to urge them to acts of vio- 
lence. While nobody justly can deny to them the right 
to coalition, in order to consolidate their interests, or of 
expressing to their employers fairly and squarely their 
grievances, every well-minded person will and must dis- 
suade them from all measures as well as from all con- 
nections that aim a blow at the existing order of so- 



184 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

ciety. The poor laborer by no means advances his own 
interest, nor that of his fellow-workmen, when he unites 
with those who on account of their athestic ruin have lost 
every regard for Divine or human orders. 

Moreover, as liberalistic economism as well as Social- 
ism have caused a great confusion in economic concep- 
tions, it is of vital importance that the laborer also should 
learn to understand the actual value and signification of 
labor in itself, and in its relation to the other factors of 
production. By means of such a correct knowledge he 
will be enabled to apply the right rule to all the produc- 
tive elements, and will avoid those mistakes so commonly 
made by wage earners. Then, for an instance, he will 
consider his daily work not only a burden, the rendering 
of a sacrifice, but as a moral vocation given to him by 
the will of his God for the purpose of conscientiously ad- 
vancing his own and the interest of his fellow-men in 
their temporal as well as in their spiritual relations. 
Wherever labor is rendered in this way, there wages, < 
this lifeless metal, will not be regarded as the only and 
exclusive equivalent for exertions made, but there also 
the moral consciousness of having accomplished some- 
thing for the promotion of the general welfare, and of hav- 
ing fulfilled a higher calling, will be taken into account. 

Besides, the proper conception of labor prevents that 
one-sided undervaluation of the relation of capital to work, 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 85 

as it is found in and propagated by the socialistic system. 
Formerly labor was degraded and enslaved, at present 
there is the opposite danger, that of giving undue superi- 
ority and weight to mere manual rendering, when com- 
pared with mental exertions, or with the claims of work- 
ing capital. But, when the mind of the wage earner is 
set right as to the proper signification of labor he will 
at once see the necessity of a gradation of the constituent 
parts of society, will perceive for the economic process 
the absolute indispensableness of enterprising capital as 
well as of producing labor. Such an employee will also 
readily recognize the responsibility, risks, cares and 
anxieties of the capitalist, will, therefore, willingly con- 
cede to capital its proportionate claim to the proceeds of 
production. In other words, when employers as well as 
employed mutually endeavor by means of the Christian 
principles of justice and well-meaning to agree upon the 
proper relation of capital to labor, the question as to the 
just distribution of the net income will regulate itself. 
At least the social tension will loose that unpleasant, 
alarming feature which characterizes it at present. Of 
course, we cannot expect such a reciprocal recognition of 
mutual responsibilities, rights and claims, unless both em- 
ployer and employed have learned to become one in a unit 
higher than mere material interest — in the love of Christ. 
Now, a word or two in regard to Unions, Strikes, etc. 



l86 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

' 'The workmen," says Contze, "have the right, they even 
owe it to themselves, their families, their co-workers and 
to society in general, to organize themselves in order to 
prevent their being wasted in the interest of capital or 
capitalists. They are justified, when, for that purpose, 
they claim the political influence due them. They 
are right when they come in for a proper share in educa- 
tion and all legitimate enjoyments of life, etc." Now, 
such trade-unions and co-operative associations have 
existed at all times. The recent immense progress of 
industry has materially favored the formation of such 
economic fraternities. They have indeed become a 
power, which capital can no longer ignore or set aside. 
Neither can it be denied that they have been of great 
value and advantage wherever they were conducted with 
circumspection, rigid dicipline and to a proper end. Such 
associations counteract the atomizing tendency of the. 
present economic society and the anarchy of free com- 
petition, besides exercising a salutary influence on their 
members by awakening a feeling of common interest — 
l'esprit du corps. 

But when many of the trade-unions represent merely 
organized and armed labor, which thus is considered 
better qualified to wage the contest with capital; when 
associations are formed for the sole purpose of furthering 
self-interest, without any regard to the welfare of the 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. \Sf 

community; when they allow themselves to be towed by 
party politics or even by the social democracy; when they 
attempt to exercise a terrorism, not only over their own 
members but also over capital; when they bind the con- 
sciences of their subjects with an iron-clad oath to obey 
the dictates of their leaders; when they tresspass on the 
sacred ground of individual liberty; then symptoms pre- 
sent themselves to us which are by no means calculated to 
inspire us with the hope of a speedy solution of the social 
problem. 

As for Strikes, Tie-ups, Lock-outs and other anomalies, 
they may at present be considered as necessary tactics in 
the mutual conflict, in order to gain a temporary advan- 
tage. Or they may be regarded on the part of Socialism 
as the best means to drive society into a state of anarchy. 
But every person of sober judgment no matter whether 
capitalist or laborer, ought by this time to be convinced 
of the fact that such coercive measures will never con- 
duce to a harmonious development of common interests. 
They are constantly widening the chasm and inflaming the 
bitterness. 

FINALLY AS TO THE DUTY OF THE CHURCH. 

That under the present emergency a solemn obligation 
rests with the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, only ignor- 
ance and selfishness can deny. But in speaking of the 
Church, we refer principally to the Evangelical portion 



1 88 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

thereof. For it is a well-known fact that the Catholic 
Church long ago has initiated measures to counteract the 
subversive influences of the present social commotions, 
and, if possible, to turn them to her own advantage. And 
what is still more important, we have to face the humiliat- 
ing truth that the ranks of Socialism and Anarchism are 
mostly swelled by former members of the Protestant persua- 
sion. This sad fact ought to induce the Evangelical 
Church, above all the others, to awaken to a sense of her 
duty, and to strain every nerve to counter-influence the 
growing evil. But in order to be fitted for such an im- 
portant work, it is absolutely necessary that the evil should 
be discerned and traced to its proper source. The foun- 
tain head of the turbid stream has to be discovered before 
the healing tree can be applied. Even if such a thorough 
research should render our long cherished ideas, as to the 
cause of the labor troubles utterly untainable, it has to be 
made,notwithstanding. 

Now, if in our previous expositions we were not entirely 
mistaken, then the social and socialistic evils of the pres- 
ent day are a disease, which under constantly growing 
oppressive circumstances has developed itself, until it has 
assumed the alarming character of an epidemic which 
threatens the existing order of Church, State and Society 
with destruction. The germs of this contagion we dis- 
covered in a general religious declining of the masses, 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 89 

and in a continually spreading of materialistic Mammon- 
ism. This truth has to be acknowledged and fearlessly 
to be stated. Each individual, whether poor or rich, 
whether capitalist or wage earner, has to be told that the 
sins of the masses have brought about the massive misery. 
That is, each economic person ought to put to him or herself 
the serious question: How far have I, by sinful deeds of 
omission and commission, added to the general decline of 
religion and of social disharmony. From this heart-search- 
ing self-examination the Church can in no wise exclude 
herself, for the judgement of God always " begins at the 
Sanctuary." She, above all, has to inquire in all earnest- 
ness, whether directly or indirectly she has not advanced 
the one-sided developement of the power of Capitalism, by 
allowing, even in her own midst, to capital and station in 
life an undue influence and precedence, and by not hold- 
ing up at all times to Mammonism its injustice. On the 
other hand, the sad position of the laborer in the present 
commotion, especially the fact that the great mass of the 
poor working class have become estranged from the 
Church, ought to cause her seriously to reflect whether 
she has always made just that dependent class of society 
the special object of tender care and watchfulness, which 
according to the illustrious example of the great Head of 
the Church and the explicit command of the word of Life, 
it is entitled to. 



190 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

Having thus laid a solid foundation in humiliation, the 
Church is able to proceed to the solution of the trouble- 
some problem. 

Now, our former considerations have convinced us that 
neither cold-hearted capitalism, nor radical atheistic So- 
cialism is capable of bringing about a harmonious state 
of affairs. The help must come from the Church and 
from her alone. For, neither the State as such, nor the 
employer, nor the workman will be in a condition to deal 
out justice, equity and forbearance, unless all of these 
elements of human society are governed and filled by the 
spirit of Christian love and consideration. But who, 
aside from the Church, will put forth efforts to permeate 
the different social ranks and orders with the power of 
Christ and Christianity ? To the Church, therefore, falls 
the all-important task to apply to the present sores of 
society the healing balm of the Gospel of redeeming love 
and condescension. 

But especial emergencies require special efforts. Al- 
low me to particularize some of such specific endeavors. 
It admits of no controversy that the Gospel of our Master 
is pre-eminently the Glad Tidings for the poor of this 
world, for the down-trodden and disinherited; while, on the 
other hand, it unsparingly condemns Capitalism, Mam- 
monism and Egotism. Now, let at this time of social fer- 
mentation and commotion, this truth stand out in bold 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 191 

relief over every pulpit in the land, in every church- 
paper, and in all the proceedings of ecclesiastical bodies. 
Nay, more, as the great mass of the wage earners as well 
as of the unchristian capitalists are not reached by the 
usual Church agencies, special efforts have to be made to 
disseminate the truth of the Gospel also in its social bear- 
ings, among the rich and the poor, the employers and the 
employed. If at any time, it is at present the imperative 
duty of the Church, speedily to carry out her Master's 
-command: " Go out quickly into the streets and lanes 
(and we venture to add: into the counting-rooms) of the 
city and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and 
the halt, and the blind." Luke xiv:2i. The capitalist 
has to be told that he is the Lord's steward, responsible 
not only for the application of his means but also for his 
dealings with those that are dependent on him. The 
laboring class must be convinced, that it is an utterly un- 
founded and malicious charge on the part of some dema- 
goguic leaders, that Christianity was exclusively a relig- 
ion for the rich, and that the Clergy and the Church — 
the Church of the lowly and hard working Jesus of 
Nazareth ! — stood with their sympathies on the side of 
cold-hearted capitalism. And do not let us for a moment 
suppose that, because a man is a heartless capitalist, that 
on that account he is beyond the reach of Divine grace. 
-Or, because so many of the deluded laborers have allowed 



192 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

themselves to be enrolled in socialistic and anarchistic 
ranks and files, that for this reason they are but the ob- 
ject of police surveillance. There are to-day men en- 
gaged in the Berlin city missions, who but a few years 
ago, preached lawlessness, uproar and destruction. The 
Lord's " portion is with the great and he shall divide the 
spoil with the strong.' * Isa. 53. 

But this is not all. Our time is peculiarly a time of 
organizations, Since the rising of the unjust power of 
capital, labor has endeavored, by means of trades-unions 
and secret societies to check this overpowering influence. 
The alarming energy of Socialism lies in its well-disci- 
plined international — yea infernal — organism. Of what 
nature this formation is, we have seen before. And as 
for the first-mentioned fraternities it is an open secret that 
many, if not the most of them, are unchristian or even 
antichristian in their principles, motives and purposes. 
Now, is there any reason why the devil should always have 
the longest end of the rope? Certainly not. Why then 
should not Christian ministers and layman, Christian 
employers and employees, without reference to creed or 
ecclesiastical color, unite, in order to stand as a healing 
power between capitalism on the one, and revolutionary, 
unchristianizing schemes on the other hand ? When the 
first Christian Church in Jerusalem was disquieted by a 
social economic trouble, the Apostles did not act on the 



SOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL QUESTION. 1 93 

Manchester idea that the evil of murmuring would rectify 
itself, neither did they tell those neglected Grecian widows 
that they better patiently submit to the wrong. No, they 
at once organized a Board of Deacons, or Elders, as some 
will have it, in order to prevent any recurrence of the 
same kind. 

Now, the church of God as well as society is at present 
fearfully disquieted and injured by social disturbances. 
Why then, should not the Christians of the land unite in 
one common effort to create, if possible, a better feeling 
between the rich and the poor, to bring about a more just 
relation of capital to labor, and thus reclaim some who, 
for economic reasons and influences have been lost to the 
Church and to their God ! When the realm of darkness 
is marshaling its forces into line, certainly the church of 
God cannot look on the heart-rending devastations, per- 
petrated on precious human souls, without rallying her 
blood-bought members around the cross of her crucified 
Redeemer, and from there send them out into the high- 
ways of life, for the purpose of rescuing the multitudes 
from final destruction. 

In conclusion, let every professor of Christianity by the 
power of God's infinite grace banish from his own heart 
and life every unrighteousness and selfishness. The 
glaring inconsistency of many a so-called Church-mem- 
ber has increased the bitterness of the masses against the 



194 SOCIAL QUESTION. 

Word of Life, and robbed them of the last remnant of 
confidence in the Church and her saving work. If we 
intend at all to do something for the welfare of others, 
either bodily, socially, economically or spiritually, the 
unselfish, self-denying love of Christ must shine forth 
from our words as well as from our dealings with our 
fellowmen. And, in whatever human relation of life that 
Divine power and love prevails, there is no room for a 
disturbing social question. 



